HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2023-09-26 Public Comment 1Dt: September 15, 2023
To: Mayor Koenig
Estes Park Town Board Trustees
Town Clerk
Planning Commission
Fr: Laura V. Campbell and Ronald R. Houlette
1221 Prospect Mountain Road, Estes Park CO
Re: Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
My husband and I are full time residents of Estes Park and we are writing to express
opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. Since PEP’s inception, (a concerned
citizen’s group) we have actively participated in the organization and we support its
mission and agree with the arguments expressed by its members.
As Estes Park residents, we are very worried about potential wild fire danger specific to
Colorado and the mountain areas. Researching this topic is terrifying. Promoting high
density housing that does not address the needs of work force housing is reckless,
unnecessary, dangerous, and contrary to what the people of this community want. Please
consider the following when making your decision regarding rezoning 685 Peak View in
favor of high density housing.
1.CoreLogic released their yearly wildfire risk report. Hundreds of thousands of
Colorado homes are at risk of burning in wildfire, per report. Colorado trailed
only California in the number of homes at risk of burning in a wild fire. August
16, 2023.
2.Article in the Loveland Reporter-Herald by Bruce Finley published January 16,
2022 “Spacing here was a problem’: Closely built homes helped Marshall
firestorm spread, researchers say. “Too many houses built too close together on
the tinder-dry high plains between Denver and Boulder led to the Marshall
firestorm losses topping $1 billion”. High density housing is fuel for a fire.
3.According to the Town of Estes Park, our community “is a wildland urban
interface where the risk of wildfire is elevated year-round.”
4.Our daughter and son in law lived in our Estes Park cabin during the Cameron
Peak and East Troublesome fires and we were gravely concerned for their safety
and frightened they would get trapped with no way to escape. The skies were
black in the middle of the afternoon, traffic was at a standstill as most of the town
was under a mandatory evacuation order. Thankfully, the fire was in October so
there were fewer tourists and not as many people to evacuate and an early
snowstorm helped to extinguish the fire. Imagine if the fire occurred during the
summer with thousands more tourists and no help from Mother Nature; who
knows how many lives would have been lost because they couldn’t leave?
Consider the recent fire in Maui with 115 confirmed deaths and hundreds still
unaccounted for. Thankfully there was an ocean for many to escape the fire while
waiting for help.
5.In terms of a wildfire risk in Estes Park, we agree with Mayor Wendy Koenig and
Town Trustee Frank Lancaster who both have publicly stated “it is not a matter of
if, but when…”
Thank you for your time and consideration. Again, please do not approve this rezoning
application.
Laura V. Campbell
Ronald R. Houlette
Comments submitted to the Clerk’s Office by 09-20-2023
Page 1
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
685 Peakview
1 me age
nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 11:28 AM
To: planning@estes.org
E te i to be very cautiou when addre ing zoning i ue The propo ed zoning of 685 Peakview i very contentiou
and locals are frustrated that we are not being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents. The planning
commission has made a recommendation that is not in line with the very requirements necessary for a change in zoning.
(NO change in condition)
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an attempt to subvert the
opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition
against this zoning, you have received countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know
that planning commi ion recommendation are not nece arily how the town board will be voting Thi project i
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio community" due to the fact that
Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of state could come in and do anything they choose with the
lots. It could turn into multiple story condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the
zoning i changed we can never go back
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Thei knew the zoning when he purcha ed the property, how hameful to abu e hi pa t connection to planning in
Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is
currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 2
LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO 685 PEAK VIEW REZONING Sept. 6, 2023
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members:
I’m wri�ng to help the Board to see this proposed rezoning from the eyes of the 110 members
of the Preserve Estes Park group, the adjacent property owners, and the 1,550+ residents and
visitors who have signed a pe��on in opposi�on to this rezoning.
Picture an old scale – a balance scale like Lady Jus�ce holds. On one side of the scale we have
Frank Thies, a developer whose interest seems to be to increase his profit. What is on the other
side of the scale? Hundreds of people who love Estes Park and who don’t want to see it
diminished by over-development. What are their concerns:
1)Traffic safety on a dangerous part of Peak View Drive
2)Poten�al drainage problems from too much impervious area on a steep site
3)Greatly increasing the fuel load for a wildfire
4)Developing a property in such a way as it renders it inhospitable to wildlife
5)Developing the property in a way that is not in character with the exis�ng neighborhood
And does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan which is supposed to be a guiding
document.
To summarize, what do we have? On one side we have one developer who, incidently, could
profit nicely by developing the land as it is currently zoned – but who instead -wants to rezone
to increase his profit. On the other side, hundreds of people who oppose the rezoning. It boils
down to this: There is no compelling reason to allow the rezoning, there are many reasons not
to allow it.
Everyone else has followed the rules, why give a single developer special treatment?
Respec�ully,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Estes Park
Page 3
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 me age
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@e te org" bmacalpine@e te org , "khazelton@e te org" khazelton@e te org , Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000 A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 4
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 5
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
685 Peak View
1 me age
RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 8:54 AM
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "wkoenig@estes.org"
wkoenig@e te org , "mcenac@e te org" mcenac@e te org , "bmacalpine@e te org" bmacalpine@e te org ,
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce affordable
housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the case. Please deny this new
application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 6
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 8/13/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Christy Jacobs
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: General Public Comment.
Public Comment:
Please review my Opposition Letter regarding rezoning & subdividing 685 Peak View. Please deny
rezoning & subdivide request of 685 Peak View. Sincerely, Christy Jacobs 1655 Twin Dr. Estes Park, CO
80517
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-
08132023.pdf 782.36KB
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 7
OpposiƟon to Rezoning 685 & Subdividing 685 Peak View
I am highly in opposiƟon to the rezoning & subdividing of 685 Peak View for many
reasons, which I have stated in previous emails. In this leƩer I will state (1) issue
that should not allow the rezoning to be approved.
Issue: The Affected Area regarding Change of CondiƟons:
There have been some concerns regarding what consƟtutes the
definiƟon/meaning of what is The Affected Area.
Some town staff have stated, in their opinion, The Affected Area is the whole town
of Estes Park due to the housing study.
This is a broad statement which would impose and pretty much remove all zoning
not only in municipalities, but even expand to include the county, the state,
infinity…etc. Estes Park is one of the 63 municipalities that OPPOSED Gov. Polis'
Senate Bill 23-213. Have you all changed your minds and now plan to remove all
zoning like Polis’ Bill 23-213 would have done?
The Affected Area is NOT the whole Town of E.P. as I will explain…as follows…
Per Development Code – Per Larimer County Assessor website – Per Colo. Rev.
Statutes 31-23-305…see below.
Per the Development code - The Affected is the Adjacent Property Owners (APOs)
Chapter 3.2- Standard Development Review Procedure
B. Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting
C. (2) Written Notification:
The applicant shall provide notification of the neighborhood and community
meeting a minimum of ten (10) business days in advance of the meeting by placing
notice in a newspaper or display advertising of general circulation in the Estes
Valley and by mailing notice to all owners and occupants within the notification
boundary of the land subject of the affected property shall be obtained by the
applicant from the most recent version of the property owners of record
provided by The Town of Estes Park. The notification shall state the time and
place of the meeting. (Note: The town provided all APO's including the APOs that
are in the county that are affected neighbors to the subject property. There is
nothing stating excluding any APO properties that are outside the town that abut
the subject property.)
Page 8
Per the Larimer County Assessor website:
Written notice is to be mailed...
It is figured out through the Larimer County Assessors website. Properties 100
feet from the subject, plus 100 feet from those properties.
4. The boundary perimeter within which written notice is to be mailed shall
be determined to include the following.
a. The subject property(s);
b. All properties abutting the subject property(s);
c. All properties directly across a public street or public
right-of-way from the subject property(s), measured by
straight line perpendicular to the street or right-of-way
centerline.
d. All properties in whole or in part less than or equal to one
hundred (100) linear feet from the outermost boundaries of any
property included in (a), (b), or (c) of this Section . The width of
any intervening public street of public right-of way shall not
be counted against the 100 feet linear measure.
(Note: The Larimer County Assessor website information along with an APO Map
of the boundaries to subject property was provided by Karin Swanlund, E.P. Town
Staff.
Per Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-305
2022 Colorado Code
Title 31 - Government - Municipal
Article 23 - Planning and Zoning
Part 3 - Zoning
§ 31-23-305. Changes
Universal Citation: CO Code § 31-23-305 (2022)
Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended,
supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. In case, however, of a protest
against changes in regulations or restrictions, or changes in the zone district
applicable to particular land, which protest is filed with the municipal clerk at
least twenty-four hours prior to the governing body's vote on the change and
is signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land which is
subject to the proposed change or twenty percent or more of the area of land
Page 9
extending a radius of one hundred feet from the land which is subject to the
proposed change, disregarding intervening public streets and alleys, such changes
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of two-thirds of all the
members of the governing body of the municipality. The provisions of section 31-23-
304 relative to public hearings and official notice shall apply equally to all changes or
amendments.
So, The Affected Area is NOT the whole Town of Estes Park, therefore, there is NO
Change in CondiƟons to the area of subject property 685 Peak View.
Please, please, please deny this rezoning request.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 10
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 8/8/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Thomas Richard kaszynski
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: General Public Comment.
Public Comment:
I’m in opposition to granting Frank Theis ANY kind of type of rezoning for his property at 685 peak view
drive. There hasn’t been any change of conditions. Everyone who bought and built homes in this
neighborhood knew that some day there would be an additional one home per acre. Everyone is fine with
that. There isn’t any need in tearing up yet another nice neighborhood Tom kaszynski 610 Devon Drive
Estes park
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 11
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com> Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned for approximately seven developments and open
space that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The zoning is consistent with the development of
the HOA in the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the property. First, he requested the property be
Rezoned for 39 Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ultimately, as it stands now, three
development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed the Notice Posting date, newspaper Notice
date for Community Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town Planning
requirements.
Theis has wasted the time of the Planning Department, Council and Community, which is adamantly opposed
to any Rezoning of this property! But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported
Theis' requests at every step and made little effort to challenge him when he missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39 development sites and finds that the
overlay lines up almost exactly with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many more
times will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new request for Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive? His Rezoning requests could burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely unnecessary! The Plot is stable at
the current Zoning of approximately seven development sites and the surrounding Community and
neighbors understand existing zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a long-standing Community on
and around Peak View Drive for one man's quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over 1,600 signatures of
Community citizens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at 685 Peak View Drive. And as a
resident who lives less that one block from this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in
Opposition!
As of now, the Town Council will have the matter of Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive on the Agenda of
September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
Page 12
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in whole or in
part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction distinct from that specified
by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second purpose is to describe several probable
and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to achieve
success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the opportunity to select
a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy and relaxation as well. The
properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the desires and requirements for the
homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in which to live. Most have invested significant
monetary resources to live within our neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings
on this 7.62 acre property that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every
neighboring property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this proposal put
forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to establish precedent in
changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving the intended goal for creating a
high-density development thereon! As stated, any such development will severely impact adjoining
properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any other large
packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved street, servicing the
new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62 acres. The volume of water
descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is
already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With the hardened surfaces attendant with the several
construction proposals offered to date, runoff will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be
sufficient to contain that amount of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing winds in an
area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by the construction will
carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift accumulations on Peak View Drive
and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of the construction. Other recent construction
has already demonstrated this behavior. One can imagine what such winds could do with flames in the
event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly exaggerated during
the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and Peak View providing an
alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally, The Thumb located on Prospect
Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing opportunities for enthusiasts which comes
with associated traffic for a large number of individuals embracing that adventure.
Page 13
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and resulting
noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings will destroy the
peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient residents of the eventual
dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of understanding for local issues such as fire
that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further, despite any proposed covenants for the future
development, the basic nature of the eventual dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of
residents, even including a very large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require significant
enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings constructed within a
large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per the application by CMS. For
some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are concerns for available water pressure and
water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly 50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive
and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles
within the greater neighborhood, all being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these
EV’s attempting to draw off of the existing electrical grid!
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote new
construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that dwellings that
are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s imagination in order to believe
such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the lower or medium income population! As
such, there can only be uncertainty about what the future for this uncertain development becomes in terms
of future residents, rentals, upkeep, etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented,
how can the current neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-
zoning, actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots in initial
proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all current residents within
the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property values. The minimum lot size
defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important consideration for residents choosing to purchase
property in this area. The proposed change amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all
of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained by living
within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities around the country.
Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of my concerns. Prior to my
engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed layouts of several subdivisions for the
Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I have designed numerous homes and, in fact,
specifically constructed my former home (in another State) with my very own hands, including all
carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments
that goes beyond just aesthetics, but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric,
sewer, as well as additional issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the
development. There are other professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more
experience and more credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better
insight than my own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted
and their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning this
7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to live out my
life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those towns possessed the
character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my decisions about them, changes
began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular business operations, particular local
politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local residents with proposed changes and
structures that destroyed the unique character of those towns. The towns became a mess that no longer
Page 14
reflected those values treasured by the long time residents and which had also attracted so many to visit
and spend their money in their towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns,
but the towns were never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned
and took their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning & Development
wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for himself. Most folks wish
to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their life’s work or even when the end of life
arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current
zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood.
Consider our former Mayor Dannels, also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem
within our community. There is a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the
right decision for our neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are not placed
into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and their “special
interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated individuals. Town residents value their
homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their heritage, and the character of the town in which they
live. I urge town officials to consider seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against
the proposed zoning change to the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 15
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Fwd: Please represent your citizens!!!
1 message
Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 8:10 AM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 6:28 PM
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
To: Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Wendy Koenig
<wkoenig@estes.org>, <bmacalpine@estes.org>, <flancaster@estes.org>, <khazelton@estes.org>, <planning@estes.org>
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 16
September 6, 2023
RE: 685 Peak View / Coyote Ridge
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees,
Building or laying concrete on any parcel with green space in Estes Park isn’t the answer to our housing problem, I
believe this rezoning sends the message that it is and allows developers to rezone with ease creating an irreversible
decision with detrimental consequences to our surrounding environment. It’s expensive to live here and it always will
be, we are further away from any major city driving up costs. We need to actively attract and retain a workforce as well
not just build on any open space (all cities in CO are currently doing this, so how do we now compete and attract the
workforce?). There is no waitlist for Wildfire they are well over 90 days on the market, 6 on the market as I write this and
applicants newest house on highway 7 is almost 6 months on the market. Increasing inventory on a parcel that will list
for over 600K+ isn’t changing the economic situation of needing a reliable car, insurance, year-round employment, and
access to affordable groceries, auto repair, home repair and other services. This rezoning is not affordable, not
attainable or deed/covenant restricted as the statement of intent documents it aligns with the comprehensive plan for
this very reason therefore it does NOT meet rezoning criteria standards of review for rezoning #2 . One landowner has
manipulated every talking point related to housing in the comprehensive plan which would maximize profit to one
landowner while every surrounding landowner has tried to talk about the 8 other guiding principles which we believe are
completely ignored related to our surrounding environment. Please listen. If you want real growth listen to your
citizens, not the developer who walked out of the community meeting and community development who sadly chose to
call a group of citizens “nimbies” in a public meeting followed by drafting a song to display for those citizens who entered
the building to see. Citizens simply care about where they live and want to be heard, please listen.
Here is what we (the Adjacent Property Owners in the affected area) care about, we live here and we can attest that we
have prevailing winds specific to this location, we abut a high tree fire zone, Peak View is dangerous period (I am the
resident who wrote about my concerns specific to Peak View and Longs last year well before this), and we have
stormwater issues, please listen. We have wildlife who birth here and yes, the area is a corridor at least acknowledged to
the citizens and the buyers of the recently purchased Thumb open space via the reports of Terracon when purchasing the
nearby property yet in community developments presentation for this rezoning it’s nonexistent (the presentation was
and is flawed), this property is less than .25 mile radius to this property.
Please listen to our PC here are some of their comments during the subdivision approval for coyote ridge 685 Peak View:
•“there’s some things about this that don’t make complete sense” – Commissioner Hanson 2:01
•“this is turning around on a hillside” -Commissioner Hanson
•“I’m not expert enough to see how it works out but it looks surprising to me” – Commissioner Hanson
•“The final plat will go to the TB only” – Director Garner
•”this does not comply with the development code as it is written” – Commissioner Shirk 1:49
•“I don’t know I have a lot of concerns I guess” 2:06 – Commissioner Shirk
•“we cannot require we can recommend” -Commissioner Heiser 2:07
•“stormwater is well beyond my level of expertise” – Commissioner Heiser 2:09
Please Listen not because over 1500 citizens have signed a petition against ANY rezoning to 685 Peak View but because
this rezoning it is not in alignment with the comprehensive plan as there are no deeds, no covenants, no affordability, no
attainability to this property in addition Future land use does NOT supersede zoning as per page 75 of the
comprehensive plan and the future land use of Suburban Estate also specifies:
o Cul de sacs and dead-end streets are discouraged in this category (this plan allows for a temporary turnaround
for a fire truck on a new dead-end street)
o Setbacks of 30+ feet are stated in Suburban Estate E rezoning would greatly reduce this.
Thank You, Stephanie Pawson (Meeker Drive)
Page 17
Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
Re: 685 Peak View - Private
2 me age
Jessica Garner <jgarner@estes.org>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:55 AM
To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org>
I have already re ponded Thank you!
Jessica
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:44 AM Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> wrote:
thi wa in the Planning email SPAM
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-3721
970 586 0249 fa
planning@estes.org
Forwarded me age
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:25 PM
Subject: 685 Peak View - Private
To Community Devleopment planning@e te org
Ms. Garner,
When asked about the applica on by Commissioner Shirk today it was clearly documented to you the
concern of falsifica on by community members who spoke prior to this mee ng and I believe you
provided an inaccurate response which you were well aware of. The applica on states "site staking must
be completed at the me applica on is submi ed". Applicant checked YES there is then a statement in
which applicant must sign and cer fy this applica on is correct, it is dated 5/30/23. This was incorrect
and acknowledged by many including the applicant (on video at his July 3rd mee ng) that it never
occurred un l late July therefore the applica on was falsified. It failed to be clearly presented again today
when asked by the Commissioner. I provided a snapshot below. In addi on to say we are not in a wildfire
zone property does abut a "high tree fire zone" as noted on EP town site and this should have been noted
in your report for our safety , in
addi on it is in front of The Thumb "Prospect Mountain" you stated there is no viewshed and cut this out
of the photo on your presenta on.
With all due respect ci zens have genuine concerns, to sit and see informa on misrepresented is
extremely concerning, please provide accurate informa on for the health, safety and well-being of our
community.
I rea ached my public comment as well, I believe it was not read since no response was given to the
mul ple ci zens who stood before the commission today rather a vote bu on was simply pushed and
Page 18
they received no response, I expect and want no response to this but I do ask Ms. Garner you please
respond accurately to our Commissioners and Ci zens in the future
I would like confirma on Commissioner Shirk received this e-mail.
Stephanie A Pawson
Page 19
Jessica Garner, AICP
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-3720
jgarner@estes.org
Jessica Garner <jgarner@estes.org>Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 8:45 AM
To: Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>
For the public record on 685 Peak View
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 7:54 AM
Subject Re 685 Peak View Private
To: Jessica Garner <jgarner@estes.org>
Cc: tmachalek@estes.org <tmachalek@estes.org>
You referred to my view and protec on when I was asking about "viewsheds" listed in the comp plan with
that specific verbiage and in Estes Park of all places I would think the town would hold protec on for these
(and they do) since tourists drive peak view to access two of the larger campgrounds at the end and stop
on peak view for the Elk herds to photograph alongside Long's Peak coming into view on the le and
Prospect Mountain on the right.
Your staff report referred to the HN A 9 mes on pages 4 & 5 alone and referred to the reasoning for
rezoning provided by the Developer which requires alignment with Comp Plan so Yes, I do believe other
parts of the Comp Plan in which this development is not in line with should have been referenced by your
staff and the HNA is not code nor a regulatory document but was chosen and u lized. Parts that fit the
narrative were imposed and our wildlife ( in the affected area and at Long's and Peak
Page 20
View school bus stop most mornings there are herds of wildlife), the prospect mountain viewshed and the
thumb, fire concerns were completely ignored. Regardless I believe it was worth noting and the
committees can make appropriate recommendations and I wouldn't be sending this e-mail but I sat
through this and there was a clear bias to fit one narrative.
Again, I appreciate your response and hope in the future citizens' concerns are heard and rather than
saying x amount or there was large public response that why x amount oppose is presented as well.
I will address my concerns to the town board because yes, I am completely taken back that a false
application can move forward, in my profession and many it would immediately disqualify someone and
that's healthcare so it's a great thing we haven't lowered standards. I'm completely taken back that one
selection of the comp plan was discussed when it's over 100 pages and taken back that the CD
department failed to listen and note any concern those citizens had a simple line as to why all these
people are here because in what I read the CD should act on behalf of all citizens not just the property
owner of 685 peak view.
Thank You again and I do appreciate your response,
Stephanie Pawson
From: Jessica Garner <jgarner@estes.org>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 9:25 AM
To: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Cc: tmachalek@estes.org <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View - Private
Mrs. Pawson, I didn't misunderstand your question. It's very important to understand the distinction between the goals,
policies and action items of the Comprehensive Plan, and the regulatory framework that the department uses to review
every application that is submitted. A Comprehensive Plan is aspirational, and the Development Code sets the actual
regulations. Until there are concrete rules established in the Code, staff cannot arbitrarily impose them onto a given
project, including this one. The Town will be rewriting the Code very soon, and will utilize the agreed-upon goals of the
Comprehensive Plan to establish or build upon the regulations of the Code. I encourage you to follow that progress and
contribute to that public process once it begins. If you're curious about the process the Town went through to adopt Estes
Forward, please take some time to review the recordings on our website, and check the link under
materials: https://estespark.colorado.gov/comprehensiveplan
The development application has been updated to reflect that if a site is required to be staked, an applicant needs to first
confirm it with the Planner. Again, if there isn't language in the Development Code that establishes the exact moment in
time that a site must be staked, a development application cannot arbitrarily impose that rule.
Thank you,
Jessica
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 9:08 PM Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mrs. Garner,
I think you completely misunderstood my ques on regarding viewshed, (this has nothing to do with my
view and/or protec on of it which is in no way effected) rather the town's intent to protect viewsheds
being the gateway to a Na onal Park and tourism dependent which is listed in mul ple statements in the
comp plan specifically of both Prospect Mountain and the Thumb. Looks like it starts on page 18 of the
comp plan in mul ple ac on items as well, in addi on it's in code about viewsheds. Park. Here's the
link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_GVZeromBMEwxBc36FruvDQpD5mSwtGf/view.
GOAL NE1: Maintain Estes Valley’s scenic character and viewsheds into and
within the Valley and Rocky Mountain Na onal Park. Prospect Mtn is referenced mul ple mes.
I understand it is not within a fire zone however it abuts a high tree fire zone and per the Community
Development site of Estes Park which I would assume is your job descrip on "The Community
Development Department provides planning, zoning, and building services to the community.
These services are intended to guide development within the communit to ensure safety,
Page 21
prosperity, and the protection of the valley's natural resources." It is dually noted in the
comprehensive plan on multiple pages. here's the link h ps://drive.google.com/file/d/1_
GVZeromBMEwxBc36FruvDQpD5mSwtGf/view
here's the link: https://estespark.maps.arcgis.com/apps/SimpleViewer/index.html?appid=
7e1538531d7e447ea67f689920b15216
Just to clarify....You can move a falsified applica on forward because if one checks yes then signs a
statement asking it's completed when it's not you consider it valid? Why do you have such statements as
listed verba m below on the applica on?
Hopefully this helps you understand that as a taxpaying ci zen, I expect ...."The Community
Development Department provides planning, zoning, and building services to the
community. These services are intended to guide development within the community to
ensure safety, prosperity, and the protection of the valley's natural resources." Not choosing
bits and pieces which favor one.
I appreciate your response and thank you,
Stephanie Pawson
From: Jessica Garner <jgarner@estes.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Cc: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View - Private
Mrs. Pawson, in my presentation to the Planning Commission I let them know that the process for staff to review an
application for completeness. The Development Code, specifically Section 3.2, outlines the procedures for how the staff
moves an application forward, and there is nothing in the Code that requires the site to be staked at the time of
application. The Town cannot impose regulations on an application that isn't already in the Code. Staff ensured that the
site was staked prior to deeming the application complete, in accordance with the Code. If you would like to review the
section, here's the link: https://library.municode.com/co/estes_park/codes/development_code?nodeId=CH3REPRST
With regard to your statement about wildfire areas, when staff reviews an application, we use any applicable
regulations or policies contained in the Development Code. Section 7.7 of the Code requires compliance with Wildfire
Hazard Areas that are shown on a map in Appendix A. This property, and your property, are not within the mapped
wildfire hazard area. I attached a link to the map, and you can review it: https://mcclibrary.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/
codecontent/18060/411944/A-4.png
With regard to your statement about viewsheds, when staff reviews an application, we use any applicable regulations
or policies contained in the Development Code. There are specific regulations regarding building heights within each
zoning district. Views are not something that the Town can guarantee for each property owner. If the applicant utilized
E-1 or E zoning standards, the height maximum for any structure is thirty (30) feet. Here's a link to the Code for Chapter
4, and the table that regulates height (Table 4-2): https://library.municode.com/co/estes_park/
codes/development_code?nodeId=CH4ZODI
Hopefully this information helps you to understand how the team conducts our work, and the accuracy of the
information we present to the public and the decision making bodies.
Thank you,
Jessica
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:06 PM Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ms. Garner,Page 22
When asked about the applica on by Commissioner Shirk today it was clearly documented to you the
concern of falsifica on by community members who spoke prior to this mee ng and I believe you
provided an inaccurate response which you were well aware of. The applica on states "site staking
must be completed at the me applica on is submi ed". Applicant checked YES there is then a
statement in which applicant must sign and cer fy this applica on is correct, it is dated 5/30/23. This
was incorrect and acknowledged by many including the applicant (on video at his July 3rd mee ng) that
it never occurred un l late July therefore the applica on was falsified. It failed to be clearly presented
again today when asked by the Commissioner. I provided a snapshot below. In addi on to say we are
not in a wildfire zone property does abut a "high tree fire zone" as noted on EP town site and this
should have been noted in your report for our safety , in
addi on it is in front of The Thumb "Prospect Mountain" you stated there is no viewshed and cut this
out of the photo on your presenta on.
With all due respect ci zens have genuine concerns, to sit and see informa on misrepresented is
extremely concerning, please provide accurate informa on for the health, safety and well being of our
community.
Please respond accurately to our Commissioners and Ci zens in the future.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Page 23
--
Page 24
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Non-compliance
3 messages
Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com>Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 2:37 PM
To: Jason Damweber <jdamweber@estes.org>, Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>, Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org>
To all concerned par es,
Hello .
I hope that you are enjoying a sunny day.
I am wri ng to report non-compliance for the Re-zoning and Subdivision applica ons for 685 Peak View Drive.
The no ces, which are jurisdic onal, are significantly incomplete and as the "flyer" below clearly shows, the Applicant has failed to comply with
the EPDC.
There are three types of no ce required in the EPDC for these applica ons. All no ces are required to include the me and place of the
mee ng(s). The posted no ces have addi onal requirements as well. The posted no ces do not include a date and me for mee ngs, an
absolute minimum of providing no ce, and there are not posted no ces on every abu ng public street/ROW.
As a result of the no ce failures, the mee ngs need to be rescheduled, including new pos ngs, mee ng all required deadlines and in full
compliance with all requirements of the EPDC.
Without proper no ce, the Town does not have the authority to hear these issues. Our Concerned Ci zen Group will not waive these no ce
failures.
Please contact me if you have any ques ons.
I thank you in advance for your a en on to this ma er,
Kris ne L. Poppitz (KLP)
Page 25
B.
1.
a.
b.
c.
(1)
(2)
(3)
a)
b)
c)
Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting.
Purpose. The purpose of the neighborhood and community meeting is to educate occupants and owners of nearby lands about the proposed
development and application, receive comments, address concerns about the development proposal, and resolve conflicts and outstanding issues,
where poss ble.
Favored Practice. Neighborhood and community meetings are encouraged as opportunities for informal communication between owners and
occupants of nearby lands, applicants and other residents who may be affected by development proposals.
Applicability. Except as provided otherwise in §3.2.G (Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application Type), neighborhood
and community meetings shall be mandatory for zoning and planning projects that require a public hearing as specified in this Code. Except as
provide otherwise in §3.2.G (Summary Table-Standard Development Review Process by Application Type), neighborhood and community meetings
shall be voluntary for zoning and planning projects that do not require a public hearing as specified in this Code.
Procedure. If a neighborhood and community meeting is held by the applicant, it shall generally comply with the following procedures:
Time and Place. The neighborhood and community meeting shall be held at a place that is generally accessible to neighbors that own and/or
reside in the notification area to the land subject to the application. It shall be scheduled after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday or at any time on a weekend
day.
Written Notification. The applicant shall provide notification of the neighborhood and community meeting a minimum of ten (10) business days in
advance of the meeting by placing notice in a newspaper or display advertising of general circulation in the Estes Valley and by mailing notice to all
owners and occupants within the notification boundary of the land subject to the application. The list of owners within the notification area of the
affected property shall be obtained by the applicant from the most recent version of the property owners of record provided by The Town of Estes
Park. The notification shall state the time and place of the meeting.
Posted Notices of Neighborhood and Community Meeting. Required posted notice requirements shall be on a standard sign with format and
material as determined by the Planning Department. The following additional requirements shall apply to posted notices pursuant to this Section:
Any posted notice shall be legible from a public street or public right-of-way in clear weather conditions. "Legible" is defined as meeting the legibility
requirements in the Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.66 (Signs).
Projects abutting more than one public street or public right-of-way shall be required to post one (1) additional sign for each abutting public street or
public right-of-way.
Posting of all notice(s) required by this Section shall take place no later than ten (10) days prior to any given neighborhood and community meeting
for which the posting is required, and the posted signage shall remain until the close of any such neighborhood and community meeting, including
Page 26
the closing dates of any neighborhood and community meeting that may be continued or postponed.
Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 2:51 PM
To: Jason Damweber <jdamweber@estes.org>, Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>, Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org>
To all concerned par es,
Hello .
I am, again, wri ng to report non-compliance for the Re-zoning and Subdivision applica ons for 685 Peak View Drive.
The no ces, which are jurisdic onal, are significantly incomplete and as the "flyer" below clearly shows, the Applicant has failed to comply with
the EPDC.
There are three types of no ce required in the EPDC for these applica ons. All no ces are required to include the me and place of the
mee ng(s). The posted no ces have addi onal requirements as well. The posted no ces do not include a date and me for mee ngs, an
absolute minimum of providing no ce, and there are not posted no ces on every abu ng public street/ROW.
As a result of the no ce failures, the mee ngs need to be rescheduled, including new pos ngs, mee ng all required deadlines and in full
compliance with all requirements of the EPDC.
Without proper no ce, the Town does not have the authority to hear these issues. Our Concerned Ci zen Group will not waive these no ce
failures.
Please contact me if you have any ques ons.
I thank you in advance for your a en on to this ma er,
Kris ne L. Poppitz (KLP)
PS This is not a duplicate email. There is non-compliance for two (2) mee ngs.
Page 27
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Per the EPDC:
Posted Notice of Public Hearings. Required posted notice requirements shall be on a standard sign with format and
material as determined by the department. The following additional requirements shall apply to posted notices
pursuant to this Section:
Any posted notice shall be legible from a public street or public right-of-way in clear weather conditions. "Legible"
is defined as meeting the legibility requirements in Estes Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.66 (Signs).
Projects abutting more than one public street or public right-of-way shall be required to post one (1) additional
notice for each additional abutting public street or public right-of-way.
Posting of all notice(s) required by this Section shall take place no later than fifteen (15) days prior to any given
Public Hearing for which the posting is required, and the posted signage shall remain until the close of any such
public hearing, including the closing dates of any public heating that may be continued or postponed.
A project with multiple required public hearing dates (for example, a project with a Planning Commission Public
Hearing followed by a Town Board Public Hearing) may retain the same posted notice(s) throughout the cycle of
public hearings, provided the posted notice(s) remain in reasonable repair and continue to be legible per the
requirements of Section C.1.
Proof that the property was posted in accord with this Section shall be provided to the department prior to the
opening of any public hearing. A date-stamped photograph of the posted notice in context, showing a date in
compliance, shall be deemed adequate proof for purposes of this Section.
Removal, damage or destruction of a properly posted notice by weather or other natural occurrence shall not be
construed as failure to comply with the public-notice provisions of this Code.
Jason Damweber <jdamweber@estes.org>Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 8:13 AM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Cc: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>, Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org>
Hi Kristine,
When I first took a look at what you sent, it appeared to me that you might have been correct with one of the red Xs near Juniper Drive (Twin Drive and Longs Drive
are across the street so do not abut the property). However, when I look at the preliminary plat, attached, it appears that the project actually only abuts one public
street, Peak View. There is a strip of land, very small in width, separating the project from Devon and Juniper which you can see in the attached. I believe this is a
public right-of-way, which is why there is also a sign posted on the northern side. As such, I believe that the two signs suffice and that there is not a compliance issue
here after all.
Jason
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Jason Damweber, ICMA-CM
Deputy Town Administrator
Town Administrator's Office
Town of Estes Park
970-577-3707
PLAT Coyote Ridge Preliminary Plat 2023-06-29.pdf
178K
Page 28
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Opposition to 685 Peak View Drive: Non-compliance with the Town's Review
Standards in the EPDC and the Estes Forward Comp Plan
1 message
Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 3:29 PM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
Non compliance denial of approval of ANY Re zoning or subsequent Subdivision of 685 Peak View Drive
(please see Exhibit A below).
There are also numerous issues of non-compliance, or lack of even an a empt of adherence/compliance to
the newly adopted Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, although it is "non-regulatory" (please see Exhibit
B below)
The items in the Comp Plan that Director Garner and Planner Washam have addressed relate to housing
types and standards that are NOT applicable to these applica ons (Re-zoning and Subdivision).
The exis ng applica ons do not apply to Workforce, A ainable, or Affordable Housing of any kind.
Thank you for your a en on and for hearing the Ci zens,
Kris ne L. Poppitz (KLP)
Full Time Estes Park Resident
Exhibit A
Page 29
Exhibit B
Page 30
Page 31
Fwd: (Confidential) Re: A new problem with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
request
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:44 PM
Good morning Mayor,
I understand there are now two pending development applications for this property, one for a rezoning and one for a
preliminary subdivision plat. That is why Travis's weekly update correctly lists this as a matter for which ex-parte
communications are prohibited.
In theory, there is no problem with the Board receiving comment on the previous application which was withdrawn. I
can't tell for sure if Ms. Rustin's comment is referring to the terminated application or the current one. Either way, I'd
be wary of comments on the last application bleeding over to the matters that will be coming before the Board soon.
As with all emails that might reference the pending applications, I'd recommend we forward this to the Clerk's Office
so they can include it in the packet when the matter comes to the Board, as a disclosure of ex-parte communication.
Dan
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 7:11 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the Town Board meeting
on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There MAY be one in the
future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the meeting. Frank Theis
acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that day.......July 7. However, on all of the
paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This
was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is submitted". Theis signed
the form stating that all of the information included was true and correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes several startling
statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 32
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
1 me age
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 12:22 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>, Barbara
MacAlpine bmacalpine@e te org , pmartchink@e te org, khazelton@e te org, cyounglund@e te org, "To Community
Development" <Planning@estes.org>, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>, franklancaster@estes.org
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for 685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight (September 11) had to be canceled
and postponed because once again the developer did not meet the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He
has also announced that he will not attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are sure to be asked?
Neighbor have repeatedly a ked if there i going to be an HOA for the propo ed developed area We have received
different answers on different occasions. The major question about future development of the larger part of the parcel
have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER Director of the Community
Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions about the various applications related to 685 Peak
View, and tated that the CDD wa ' ati fied' with the application
The Town Attorney al o made major effort to hut down variou avenue of di cu ion
There i a memo from the Public Work Department clearly li ting i ue that needed to be addre ed Were thi all
addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the deciders! The citizens
have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they are not being heard.
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 33
While the current application is a limited approach to
rezoning the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the
intent letters submitted in previous rezoning requests. Has
the applicant’s intent changed? NO
His stated intent is to create a new neighborhood, not to
build in compatibility with the existing one. It’s more
likely that this is an interim strategy to ultimately achieve
his original goal of rezoning all 7.62 acres, thereby
increasing the housing density to a level different from
and inconsistent with the current allowed density in an
area with starkly different development patterns.
At each meeting held by the applicant, there was little or
no support for a change but there was vigorous
opposition. There is also a large volume of input to the
Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View. The opposition has been engaged but has not
always been welcomed.
It seems to anger some of the Town staff, and some look
upon us as “NIMBYs”. We are not NIMBYs but citizens
concerned about our Town’s future and we want to be
heard. We want and should have an environment where
citizens are not criticized or chastised when engaged in
town affairs. Our goal is to make our Town's future as
bright as possible.
Page 34
Let’s start by simply maintaining the recently approved
and long-standing 1-acre lot plan and staying in line with
our guiding documents.
As we ponder future development here, we must carefully
consider where it goes and how it goes into our existing
landscape, so we don’t kill what we have.
We are hopeful and cautiously optimistic that your
decisions will comply with the Code and the Plan, both of
which advise us to cautiously weigh the pros and cons of
each development proposal, and in this case, just say NO.
Jan Scott
512 Devon Dr.
Page 35
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Public Comment against 685 Peakview Rezone
1 me age
Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 9:33 AM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc Dan Kramer dkramer@e te org
Ms. Williamson: I would use the Public Comment form, but I don't see the Agenda for the 9/26/23 (current agenda and the
public comment form have 9/12/23). The website says if there is not an agenda item listed, to send the comment letter to
you. Please accept the attached and submit to the Trustees.
Comment ltr on 685 Peakview.docx
23K
Page 36
Although I am not representing any of the parties or neighbors, I am a Colorado
attorney, have practiced real estate law extensively, and have studied the legal issues
on re-zoning. This comment letter is to address the legal barriers to Mr. Theis' plan. I will
be speaking on this at the Trustee meeting on the 26th, but due to the 3-minute time
limit, I cannot adequately cover these points in that forum. Several speakers will speak
on some of the separate issues.
We heard the Planning Commission approve the application on the grounds that it met
the future zoning recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. They then ignored all of
the legal prohibitions against “spot re-zoning”, probably because the Town Attorney has
not taken a position against the application. This does not meet our Development Code,
which takes priority over the Comp Plan.
The Planning Commission and the Town Attorney are wrong in permitting this
application to proceed. The Future Zoning plan, incorporated in the new Comp Plan,
appears to eliminate all E1 classifications, or 1 house per 1 acre lot. Mr. Theis
apparently bought this parcel on the assumption that it would be rezoned to smaller lots
in accordance with that recommendation. If the Planning Commission and the Town
intend to eliminate all E1 zoning, though, it cannot be done one lot at a time, unless the
terms of the re-zoning code are met. This project does NOT meet the legal
requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, nor does it follow all of the advice
embodied in the “advisory” Comp Plan. Follow your law. Rezoning must follow the terms
of Estes Valley Code, first, and the court cases associated with “spot” rezoning through
a finding of change of conditions, or you must re-zone the Town generally through a
legislative process, if the intent is to eliminate all E1 classifications. You can’t rezone
one lot at a time.
•The Estes Park Development Code terms control, not the Comp Plan terms.
Rezoning must follow the code, and the Comp Plan is only a secondary (“advisory”)
consideration. To repeat, by law, first this body has to follow the terms of our own
Code, and only after that, should the Comp Plan be considered. This is a
foundational principle of law throughout the land. When you have a code, that’s it,
the code wins. Period.
The Planning Commission stated that as long as the application met the future
zoning for the area in the Comprehensive Plan, it was automatically legal. THAT IS
WRONG. The Comp Plan does not control what is allowed under the re-zoning
statute. While it may be true in certain jurisdictions that simply matching a master
plan is all that is needed, that is NOT true here. The comp plan is not incorporated
into the development code (is not “regulatory”), and only after the code provisions
are met should the Comp Plan even be considered. The Estes Park Development
Code has a specific re-zoning code that has to be followed. IT EXPRESSLY
STATES that re-zoning is only allowed if there is a change of conditions in the
areas affected. That overrides any court cases that discuss only master plan
consistency.
Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 9:33 AMRebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>
Page 37
In short, the Code controls over the Comp Plan.
•There are no changes in conditions in the areas affected that would justify
a re-zoning under our Development Code. Therefore, the application should
be denied.
The Staff and the Town Attorney would have you believe a change of conditions in
the entire Town or Valley wide will qualify to meet the requirements of the re-zoning
code. Community Development has stated that an increased demand for housing
and a shortage of buildable lots is a change. Court cases provide direction for
wWhat is a “change of conditions in the area affected”. Town Attorney Kramer has
provided only one case, a 1971 Boulder case that justified a land use change due to
increased demand for housing in Boulder.
The case cited by Mr. Kramer is not relevant to our situation or our codes. The
Boulder case was not for a spot zoning change like the Theis application. It was an
application for a Planned Unit Development, (a P.U.D.), a completely different code
and completely different review standards and criteria, not the re-zone standard in
our Development Code.
Estes Park does have its own P.U.D. ordinance, with specific review standards, but
Theis's application is NOT for a P.U.D., and that one case just mentioning housing
demand is completely irrelevant. Estes Park has always had a high demand for
housing, and it has not been shown how an increase in demand in the Valley
generally has affected this neighborhood and this project specifically, as required by
the Code and court cases. Otherwise, it is illegal spot re-zoning.
If there is a real need for more housing, how is this one small project, that might add
just a few more houses, a solution? It will have a major impact on the neighbors,
with little benefit.
Secondly, Community Development claims that the recent redevelopment projects
along or near Hwy 7 constitute changes in conditions. That is not accurate. Those
projects are half a mile away or so, and on the Highway 7 corridor, which, by the
way are in the “Opportunity Zone” for redevelopment in the future zoning plan.
Those projects are NOT in the “areas affected” as required by the re-zoning code.
None of the neighbors who got notices of the Theis project got notices about those
projects. This neighborhood is an interior, residential, low-density area. Those
projects were not in the immediate area the courts describe in spot re-zoning cases.
Lastly, Community Development points to the higher density Planned Unit
Development and some smaller, non-conforming lots, near the proposed
development as justifying an increase in density on the Theis parcel. Those
conditions existed when the zoning code classified the area as E1. There was an
opportunity then to zone this neighborhood at less than one house per acre to match
Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 9:33 AMRebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>
Page 38
those developments, but instead, the Town planners decided to preserve the 1 acre
minimum. Those nearby projects were there when the code was adopted, so that
does not constitute a CHANGE IN CONDITION.
The court cases require a change of conditions SINCE the zoning classification was
adopted.
Importantly, Theis himself admitted at one of the hearings that there was NO change
of conditions in the area.
In short, there are NO CHANGES IN CONDITION TO THE AREA AFFECTED, the
standard that must be met in the Development Code.
•The Comp Plan does not control, and this doesn’t completely meet the
Comp Plan.
The re-zoning has to meet the Code terms, as the Comp Plan is just advisory. It is
NOT part of the Code, and not “regulatory”. Simply matching the Comp Plan or a
future zoning plan does not make this automatically legal, despite what the Planning
Commission believes.
Just taking that premise, though, that it does meet the Comp Plan requirements,
what about the parts of the Comp Plan that the proposal does NOT meet? Even Ms.
Garner said, “let’s not let the Comp Plan get in the way”. It may fall within some
future zoning plans for the general area, but clearly, that statement is an admission
this is not an automatic “it meets the comp plan” change.
The group that has been opposing this has submitted numerous parts of the Comp
Plan that this application does not meet, such as open space reservations, wildlife
corridor protections, transportation considerations. I refer you to their numerous
comments on these issues.
If you look at the future zoning plan, the focus is on the “Opportunity Zones”, along
main road corridors. This designates the area for future zoning changes and
redevelopment. The nearest corridor designated for zoning changes was the area
fronting Hwy 7, not this neighborhood. It is highly questionable that the area of this
parcel is within a future plan for reduction of lot sizes.
The Comp Plan itself says it is not changing existing zoning or character.
Let me call your attention to page 62 of the new Comp Plan, where it is stated that
“The Future Land Use Categories are not zoning districts”. It continues with this
statement: “Adoption of this Plan and the Future Land Use Plan does not alter,
circumvent, or supersede established zoning or overlay districts without
following the legislative process for amending the zoning map or Town and County
development codes.” In other words, matching some part of the Comp Plan for
higher density lots (which I think were limited to the Opportunity Zones), is not an
Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 9:33 AMRebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>
Page 39
automatic justification of a parcel rezone. You must still follow the Code terms first,
and if it doesn’t meet the re-zone code, you must legislatively re-zone areas.
These ideas are repeated on Page 81 which says that the future land use categories
are aspirational, and they DO NOT CIRCUMVENT ESTABLISHED ZONING OR
RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS. It also says the new Comp Plan and future zoning
codes do NOT change the existing zoning map or development Codes.
Importantly, this excerpt from the Comp Plan is critical:
“The Future Land Use Map is a guide to achieving the community’s stated vision;
however, it is not a mandate. …..A proactive and strategic approach to the
redevelopment or conservation of Future Study Areas within the Estes Valley
promotes a higher rate of success in realizing opportunities that meet the
community’s preferences and needs rather than passively reacting to market-
driven development pressure and fluctuating real estate trends.”
So, the so-called housing demand has not changed the minds of the 1800 people
who signed the petition, and a few more houses that will be sold to retirees and 2nd
home owners will not affect the housing demand. This is NOT the community’s
preference.
•This is also illegal spot rezoning. Changing the zoning classification for one
parcel is illegal spot re-zoning, unless it is a valid response to a change in
conditions. The legally correct way is to re-zone the entire area or Town. This
Board has been spot re-zoning, illegally, as long as I have lived here, because to
rezone large areas would trigger massive opposition. Recent projects for
workforce or attainable housing have been approved in the last few years in
ways that have devastated the neighbors and their property values, but legal
opposition was too costly and nearly impossible.
Well, NOW you have a very significant opposition to this spot re-zone. Over 1800
citizens have signed the petition against this project because they are tired of the
Board ruining their neighborhoods, one project at a time. You may have turned up
the heat, one project at a time, but the frog is now jumping out of the boiling pot.
In summary, there is NO CHANGE OF CONDITIONS IN THE AREAS AFFECTED.
That is what the Development Code says, and requires. That pre-empts any Comp Plan
recommendations, since those are not regulatory, in other words, not in the code. The
Comp Plan is merely advisory. The code CONTROLS, and if you change the code for
just one parcel, it is illegal spot zoning.
This is illegal. The law is clear. This does not meet our own Development Code
criteria, and is not entirely consistent with the Comp Plan. The future zoning plan
appears to apply mostly to the “Opportunity Zones, not existing neighborhoods. There
Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 9:33 AMRebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>
Page 40
is no change in conditions in the area affected. It is illegal spot re-zoning. Why would
you force all of these people to spend thousands on litigation, using their own tax
dollars, eroding trust in the Town Board defending a decision that is immensely
unpopular, and legally incorrect?
Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 9:33 AMRebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>
Page 41
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
1 me age
Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:05 AM
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Dear Friends,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard work, and know that
you are inve ting your be t effort in all that i before you I wanted to write becau e we all realize there are new idea
developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes
in perspective, like any new ideas, can bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density in order to create
new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle. I am from Houston,
and thi new empha i i doing wonderful thing a the city rebuild it entire downtown core The problem come when
people forget that this good idea was born, as reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street
Journal, in the attempt to make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller
areas regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of course, but the
propo ed development at 685 Peakview doe nothing to addre tho e hou ing need In addition, any competent urban
planner will tell you that such development needs to be accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character,
its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely
stacks higher density into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
tudy in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accompli hing nothing e cept to betray long term re ident who
trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this application does not
meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of the area is minimum 1 acre lots.
There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower
income people at all By E te Park definition, the propo ed E zoning i uppo ed to provide for additional park , open
space and trail/bikeway linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at this time, but that
begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed. And it is crucial for the Town to ask
what the ne t tep will be before approving thi tep Thi area i not a tran itional or infill area and i not walkable from
downtown. There has been no change in conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora
and are certainly not Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Friends, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic, longer lines at the Safeway,
more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up
with all that? Of cour e, a long a more meaningful and appropriate workforce, attainable and mi ing middle hou ing i
being added. However, the proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like
me) already here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of density. The
developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the rezoning request.
Page 42
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 43
September 21st, 2023
Estes Park Board of Trustees
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org,
Re: Opposition to Peak View Rezoning
Dear Valued Trustees:
While I am not directly affected by the Peak View rezoning issue, currently being considered for Trustee
approval, I am among the many Estes Park residents who are concerned about its implications. I now
own and live in a home that was built by my great uncle (Alvin Hall) in 1919, situated on 1.25 acres along
the West Wonderview corridor. I inherited this home and decided to retire here, based on the general
assumption that Estes would maintain its attractive open spaces and low-density housing.
Having lived and worked in Germany for some 7 years, I know what it is like to be packed into multiple
6-story apartment buildings, row houses, and condominiums. Open space housing is in very short supply
anywhere in Europe and, hence, it is a unique and valuable attribute found only in America. When flying
over our continent, it is clear we have nothing but open space, particularly in Western States.
Thus, I am confused by what is driving this requirement for high-density housing. Clearly this is being
pushed by Progressives at both Federal, State, and local levels, but why? And why should I be obliged to
go along with it? I attempted to find answers. First, I attended the proposed development plan
presentation at the Rec Center where I was told not to worry, that rezoning was not an issue. Then I
attended both planning commission meetings, where commissioners blatantly ignored concerns from
dozens of Peak View residents. To them, after all, this was not a big deal: only 3 houses to be built on
half acre plots. But it is a big deal. It will set the standard and serve as a precedent for rezoning all over
town.
Now rezoning is before the Trustees. If you were to poll Estes residents, you would find overwhelming
opposition to it (based upon PEPs 1700+ petition signatures). I would like to think that we still have in
America, some semblance of representative government and that you will vote against any zoning
change in Peak View.
Respectfully Yours,
Dr. Carl E. Cross, PhD
Staff Scientist, Los Alamos Nat. Lab. (retired)
740 W. Wonderview Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-646-1906 cecross53@gmail.com
cc: PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com, wkoenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
Comments submitted to the Clerk’s Office by 09-22-2023
Page 44
Susan Kaszynski
sbr52@yahoo.com
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO
9/21/23
Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am asking you once again to please protect the rights of the existing land owners. Your
organizational chart has the citizens at the top of the chart. Please remember this as
you have seen the overwhelming responses and signatures on the petition against the
proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive.
If Frank Theis’s intent is to stop development after subdividing the 3 lots, then why
doesn’t he just make the 3 lots 1 acre each as currently zoned. I believe that the
planning commission did not do their do diligence when considering this request. They
stated they could not consider any future development when voting on this proposal.
But this decision does affect future development. It appears to the general public that
this was a done deal and just a rubber stamp of approval. If Frank Theis gets the zoning
changed for the 3 homes he will then be able to use that change in zoning as leverage
to change the zoning to develop the rest of the property. It is difficult to trust anything
Frank says as he has constantly changed his story.
Frank Theis admitted to working with the planning department to determine how best to
proceed forward to make this happen-is this ethical. When asked in his very short
meeting that he walked out on, why he changed the last submission from 4 lots to 3 lots,
he stated that the planning department told him if he made it 3 lots instead of 4 that he
did not have to have any open space-good for Frank, bad for the community.
We bought knowing it would be developed at some point, but knew the zoning was 1
house per acre -no problem. The previous and the recently approved Comp Plan
supports the 1 house per acre. This change in rezoning will devalue the surrounding
properties and disrupt the character of the neighborhood, for the profit of one person,
and if it is approved will undermine the constituents trust in the town government. The
constituents confidence that the town will do what is right will be lost one parcel at a
time.
There has been no change in condition. These lots will not provide affordable or
workforce housing. Bottom line is 1 person will profit, Frank Theis. This is spot zoning!
Thank you in advance for taking time out of your busy schedules.
Sincerely,
Susan Kaszynski
Page 45
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Comments submitted to the Clerk’s Office by 09-26-2023
Page 46
I am wriƟng to oppose the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View.
It is my opinion that the “change of condiƟons” required by the Development Code as a prerequisite to
rezoning does not exist. The Staff Report contends that the Valley-wide workforce and affordable
housing shortage, supported by a Housing Needs Assessment of quesƟonable validity (since demand
projected by previous versions has never been met), consƟtutes such a change of condiƟons. This
misconstrues the requirement that the change of condiƟons be within “the area affected” by the
rezoning and is clearly not the original meaning of the Code, which intends that the qualifying change of
condiƟons be proximate to the area to which the rezoning proposal applies. The report’s lengthy
aƩempt to jusƟfy this misinterpretaƟon is nothing but jawboning, a specious argument that aƩempts to
convince based on word count and not logic. The proposal fails to meet the Code requirements at face
value.
The Staff report notes exisƟng lot sizes to the north and west (in PUDs that predate zoning established
under the Code) consistent with the current request and notes that there are numerous non-conforming
lots in these areas. Since PUDs are not generally held to strict conformance with zoning requirements,
this is not surprising, and since these condiƟons predate the established zoning, they cannot be used to
establish a change of condiƟons under the Code.
If the Town Board finds otherwise, however, I wo uld offer an alternaƟve.
The applicant previously proposed rezoning the enƟre parcel to R-1, the highest single-family density
classificaƟon contained in the Code. I fully agree with other commenters that this originally requested
density is incompaƟble in every way with the topography, surroundings, density, infrastructure and other
condiƟons of the neighborhood; in short, it is an insult to the newly enacted Comprehensive Plan, to
those who worked hard to create it, to the Development Code, to the deli beraƟve process required
thereunder, to the ciƟzens of the Valley and, most of all, to the other property owners of the
neighborhood.
In the face of severe and appropriate criƟcism from nearby property owners and interested parƟes from
throughout the Valley, that proposal was withdrawn and the current proposal offered as a subs Ɵtute.
This new proposal covers only the western porƟon of the parcel, roughly one-quarter of the full parcel,
requesƟng a lower density equivalent to double the permissible density as currently zoned. The
applicant claims to have no specific plans for the remainder of the parcel, a claim that appears
quesƟonable on its surface.
The original proposal was accompanied by a subdivision development plan that would have developed
the western porƟon of the parcel in a manner consistent with the new rezoning request. The new
request is accompanied by a subdivision development plan that is largely consistent with the plan
offered by the original proposal. Thus, with respect to the porƟon of the parcel that is the subject of the
current request, nothing of any great consequence has changed.
It seems likely that the applicant intends to renew his request for rezoning of the remainder of the parcel
at the higher density once the dust has seƩled on the current proposal, using the presumed approval of
the current proposal as the required change of condiƟon, which would then inarguably exist. This course
of acƟon, were it to be followed, would represent a cynical move to end-run the regulatory process to
achieve a highly unpopular, and inappropriate, goal.
Page 47
Thus, my proposal: If the Town Board is supporƟve of the requested density increase on the western
porƟon of the parcel, I would suggest that the requested rezoning to E (1/2 acre minimum) be made
with respect to the enƟre parcel, not just the western quarter (as requested by the applicant),
accompanied by a statement that this density (double the density for which the parcel is currently
zoned) is the maximum suitable density under current condi Ɵons, and that no subsequent change
should be considered absent a further change of condiƟons.
Note that this proposal makes no specific assumpƟon regarding the applicant’s plans for the balance of
the parcel. It merely offers him the same development opƟons he has already requested for the western
porƟon, which seems appropriate, while freeing him from the expense, delay and uncertainty of a
further rezoning request.
In reading the Code, I see nothing that would prevent the Trustees from approving a zoning change that
is expanded beyond that requested by a property owner. Indeed, such a rezoning is simply a legislaƟve
acƟon that is undertaken at the sole discreƟon of the Trustees. While I am not parƟcularly in favor of
any rezoning of the subject property, it is my feeling that this proposal may represent a compromise that
is in the best interest of all parƟes. Please give it your earnest consideraƟon.
Best regards,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Page 48
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/25/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Walt Borneman
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
file uploaded
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
Town Board September 25.pdf 64.78KB
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 49
September 25, 2023
Mayor and Trustees:
There have been many versions of the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peak
View, but the threshold question—indeed the only legal analysis to be applied in
arriving at your decision—is whether or not there has been a change of condition
to require, or even make desirable, any requested change. Changed conditions
elsewhere in town do not provide the legal right to re -zone an area that has not had
any change in conditions.
I respectfully disagree in this regard with the planning commission and the
town attorney. The very purpose of zoning is much narrower than the expressed
view that an entire town should be considered when evaluating changed
conditions. This position is not supported by Colorado zoning case law going back
to the Colorado Supreme Court case of Clark v. City of Boulder in 1961. What
would be the purpose of zoning districts if the character of individual districts
could be so cavalierly dismissed?
Additionally, the Prospect Mountain Townhome area west of the subject has
been cited as justification for this requested change. Prospect Mountain
Townhomes were platted over the course of 6 filings beginning in the mid -1980s—
almost forty years ago. Density tradeoffs included 14-acre Outlot C on Prospect
Mountain. Today, that outlot is under conservation easement and part of The
Page 50
Thumb Open Space. Prospect Mountain Townhomes are not applicable to this
proposed re-zoning as evidence of either recent changes or density justifications.
Finally, this application has taken on much greater ramifications for Estes
Park than just the seemingly benign application for three—as it currently stands—
smaller-sized lots. What is the carrying capacity of this town and this valley? Prior
town boards have long taken the position that bigger and more of everything is
better. Change may indeed be inevitable, but at some point change can destroy
what was once so special in the first place.
If you want to signal that there is a limit and a responsible carrying capacity
to Estes Park, please start by denying any change in zoning for 685 Peak View.
Walt Borneman
572 Darcy Drive
Page 51
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: David Caddell
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
Need to adhere to the comp plan, why do one if it is not followed? Need to listen to the people, the people
elected you, with over 1600 against this the people should be listened to. Travis was impressed with 900
respondents on the 1% tax issue. As an appraiser I am very concerned we are over building, local property
managers state that demand for long term rentals is slowing. The WF housing project is not selling
because it is not affordable with todays interest rates. We don't have the support infrastructure of service
companies and another major grocer to support thousands more year round residents as with all of this
down zoning proposed we are not adding any commercial zoned areas. We are ruining the character of
Estes Park with high rise development. Almost none of the rules have been followed with this project,
proper notice, proper signing, multiple plans, plans changed after meetings. Planning department
employee(s) making fun of residents calling us nimby's is not ok.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 52
Sep 25, 2023
Dear Mayor and Trustees,
The yellow graphic below is the sales flyer for the original Peak View property development and
includes the vision for Estes growth and quality of life with most lots over an acre to forever
preserve the character and essence of Estes.
Why change that vision from the only zoning that area has ever had for the one 685 lot that will
likely host second or rental houses with part time occupancy? Additionally, is the questionable
and as yet undefined development of the remainder of the 685 lot beyond the current project
proposal.
The Dannels Family who developed the Peak View properties is appalled by the thought that a
change to the current zoning could even be seriously considered especially with no changes in
conditions in the areas affected.
I still own lots in the surrounding area and will seriously consider selling them if re-zoning is
approved, even though they have been in my family for well over fifty years.
My intent is to build a retirement home on this land that is directly adjacent to the subject
property, and to live on the property where my grandparents planted a tree over forty years
ago when my son was born. We have nurtured that tree and the property all these years but if
re-zoning is approved, I would no longer want to build this retirement home as I always hoped.
Let the Dannels Family stay in the Estes Park that we helped build and make what it is
today. Testaments to our caring for Estes are the Dannels Fire Station, family service to the
community with over 40 years on the Town Board, Planning Commission and as Mayor, and
literally building dozens of houses throughout the Estes Valley.
Estes Park owes it to the Dannels Family, adjacent properties, and most important - all future,
current and past involved members of the community to keep the current zoning in effect.
Please deny any re-zoning for 685 Peak View Drive.
Respectfully,
Bart Dannels
Page 53
Page 54
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/25/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Stephanie Pawson
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
Please Deny this PARTIAL Rezoning Request The Comprehensive plan DOES NOT list “rezoning” under
listed ACTIONS The Suburban Estates Category specifically states which this plan goes against. » Primary
Road Setback: 30+ ft. » Transportation System: Automobiles are the primary mode of transportation on
low-volume streets that are wide enough for pedestrians to safely walk the shoulder. As much as possible,
dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are discouraged in favor of efficient, interconnected street networks. The
3 sides or 75% of E1 must be given the same rezoning allowing an ADU on each location as well so this is
a drastic change in condition if approved. 7 Homes 7 ADU's allowed. There is no Change of Condition in
the AFFECTED AREA . Wildlife Corridor Maps have not been updated and this is detrimental. Thumb
Purchase Biological Reports state on Page 9 "the Property provides much needed refuge and habitat
connectivity for migrating wildlife species." 685 is directly below. Thank You
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 55
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/24/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Kristine L. Poppitz
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Rezoning request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels Addition.
Public Comment:
IF the Town Attorney and/or Town Staff believes that the "areas affected..." per the EPDC is the entire
Town, then why weren't ALL Citizens mailed a letter as was sent to the Adjacent Property Owners (APOs),
the areas affected, to notify them of upcoming meetings for the property at 685 Peak View Drive? The
answer? Because the areas affected are the APOS NOT the entire Town. The requests for 685 Peak View
Drive are not valid as no changes in conditions in the areas affected exist. as confirmed by the Applicant
himself: Thank you for following the EPDC and denying ANY re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 56
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/25/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Kristine L. Poppitz
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Rezoning request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels Addition.
Public Comment:
At his own Neighborhood meeting, when the Applicant was asked what are the required changes in
conditions in the areas affected, the surrounding neighborhood, again, required per the Estes Park
Development Code, necessary to warranty a request such a change in density, "...uh, none to the
surrounding neighborhood...," Frank Theis, Applicant. Link: https://vimeo.com/830176680/8801c6c291
How can Staff "find" in their Report that there are changes in conditions in the areas affected when the
Applicant himself stated that there are none? They cannot.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 57
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/25/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Kristine L. Poppitz
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
Thank you for honoring the only zoning 685 Peak View Drive has ever had. DENY ANY RE-ZONING of
685 Peak View Drive.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
Slide17.JPG 108.23KB
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 58
Page 59
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 60
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:19 AM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 61
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Terry Rustin
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park. I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View
and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal. The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests
for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area of the property. The developer has cited the
need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition. The need for affordable housing in Estes Park
began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He filled the need for affordable housing
by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; .This is a persisting condition, not a change in
condition. I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 62
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 63
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 64
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, franklancaster@estes.org,
"TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View
rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes
Park. We’ve been coming here for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also
admired the great history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong
women leadership), going back decades, and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how
the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn
Lake flood realized that the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed
to make better use of the scenic landscape created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall
River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown businesses faced Elkhorn
Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters and
parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-
years-ago-changed-estes-park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood
recognized that Estes Park’s most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that
maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t
just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going forward. The
success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes
Park unique, and which has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic
landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic values command respect. It affords
wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain above it) for
nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming
Page 65
30-odd houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore
thumb” in relation to the mostly one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a
visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s
get serious: it’s a precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or
smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22,
2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in which he referred to the 3
houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained that
the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the
adjoining street once the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape
of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed, in short
order, by another application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the
approval to argue that an even denser development has been blessed by the Board – which
would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for
the Board to take a dim view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional
objections that have been made forcefully by other local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no
assurance that any housing resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will
likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses built will likely be north of
$600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most
natural reading of the “changes in condition” language in the Development Code is
that it refers to changed conditions pertaining to the subject property, not to the Estes
Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding
community, the need for affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in
condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change” because it is hardly “new.”
Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several decades,” as
the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least 1968. See
“Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021,
available at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_
81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968,
cannot be considered a new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
Page 66
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent,
wise course and reject the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 67
Sept. 26, 2023
Mayor and Town Board:
Changes in Condition for 685 Peakview. What are those changes?
Over 90% of the homeowners in our area are against this rezoning. We have not
seen any “changes in condition” in our neighborhood. Almost a year ago the
applicant is on record as having said “There are no “changes in conditions”. What
has changed?
A zoning decision that merely provides for an individual benefit without
consideration for public benefit should not be supported.
The applicant’s stated intent is to create a new neighborhood, not to build in
compatibility with the existing one.
As we ponder future development here, we must carefully consider where it goes
and how it goes into our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here in
Estes.
Let’s start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-standing 1-acre
lot plan and staying in line with our guiding documents.
Just say NO to this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time.
Jan Scott
512 Devon Dr.
Page 68
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 1
To: planning@estes.org
Re: 685 Peak View Rezoning from E-1 to E
Date: August 15, 2023
John Ward
1420 Juniper Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
sewptr44@gmail.com
I. Introduction
On May 15, 2023 I posted a short comment to the Planning Commission making note of my recent
reading of material relevant to the proposed rezoning and stating my strong opposition to any
and all rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive which would enable or potentially enable any increase
in development density over that permitted by the current E-1 zoning. At the time I wanted to
make sure that my voice was part of the overwhelming public opposition to this application.
The purpose of these remarks is to spell out my reasons for opposition. The very first public
presentation at the December 15, 2022 meeting was a shocking display of total indifference to all
that makes Estes Park a special place to live, that rare balance of urban and rural in a dramatic
mountain landscape. Of course there was expectation that 685 Peak View would be developed
into one acre lots in accord with the long standing E-1 zoning. I would miss the traditional de facto
open space but accept a new owner’s rights to development consistent with neighborhood values.
The Applicant’s response has simply been out of bounds. Nothing has significantly improved in
successive plans over the last six months. I also found the Planning Department Memo to the
Planning Commission for their May 16, 2023 meeting disappointing in scope and structure. It
struck me as unbalanced with respect to an obsessive need for affordable workforce housing at
the expense of so many other equally important objectives in the Estes Forward Comprehensive
Plan. The VISION statement on page 6 of the Plan (quoted in full on page 18 below) provides a
stirring challenge for all of us who care about the future of our Town.
As a left-leaning idealist one might suppose that I would entertain respect for and sympathy with
the worthy goals of affordable workforce housing. Indeed I do, recognizing it as part of the global
inequality problem. It also has a rather particular personal meaning for me. On my first visit to the
Estes Park Post Office to get potential mail from our new PO box on the second day after we had
purchased our Juniper Drive house in May 1994, the first bit of conversation I over heard between
two people (strangers to me) was one of them saying good bye to the other and giving as reason
for leaving that he could no longer afford to live here. Susan and I had just moved here because
we could no longer afford to live in Boulder.
Unfortunately, the worthiness of a goal does not provide moral license to pursue that goal at all
costs. Action in pursuit of a goal which achieves very little or nothing for the goal but does
significant unnecessary harm as a byproduct is not a good course of action. This harm may be to
individuals or to other worthy goals or to both. It may be personal or financial or temporal in the
sense that a precedent is established which only becomes harmful at some future time.
Page 69
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 2
In the present case it is clear that the rezoning could be personally harmful to owners of property
near the rezoned property. Many of them have expressed this emotive harm in terms of loss of
views ranging from wildlife in the meadow to the beauty of high alpine ridge lines. I am not an
adjacent property owner but would sense these losses with every drive to or from my home or
when walking past the property to or from the Thumb Open Space trail.
There are also other harms, all of which have been raised in various contexts in Public Comments
and neighborhood meetings including, but not limited to:
• loss of wildlife habitat (this is harm to the wildlife involved, not to our pleasure in viewing
that wildlife);
• traffic safety (especially along Peak View Drive at the two curves — (a) Devon/Juniper
intersection and (b) roughly half-way between the Longs Drive and Twin Drive intersections);
• increased runoff due to significant reduction in permeable surface soil. Property owners
along the south side of Peak View Drive report that there are already drainage problems.
• increased risk of fire (especially under the high wind conditions often prevailing across this
property in dry seasons such as late fall and winter);
• loss of Estes Park character and charm — those special qualities which make Estes Park a
unique and wonderful place to visit and that distinctive blend of town and country which
make living here something to enjoy most every day of the year.
• Long term reduction in property values — last in my list but not least and written in italics
for emphasis
With respect to harm to other worthy goals, the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan includes many
goals which cannot be simultaneously pursued in equal measure. Choices must be made and
current economic conditions are not favorable to having a cluster of small homes on small lots
which are workforce affordable as the applicant desires (at least in the plans now withdrawn). He
told us the price and numerous people did the math and told him it was not possible.
At this time in Estes Park, workforce affordability seems limited to some variant of multi-unit
residential properties. There are an estimated 300 to 400 such dwelling units currently under
development or construction in the Estes Valley but I do not recall a single example of a
development large or small consisting of single family homes on individual lots deliberately
designed and built for citizens who meet workforce qualifications.
It would appear that with arrogant indifference to all of the above, 685 Peak View Drive is being
advanced as a test case against economic reality for the benefit of one developer and the goals of
one Planning Department both indifferent to harming surrounding neighborhoods. I do not believe
that affordable workforce housing can be attained on the 685 Peak View acres. If not for the
workforce, who then will be served? Several people have suggested that moderately expensive
small homes on small lots will nicely serve the vacation home needs of middle income middle
class retirees and families. Yet another missing middle.
Against the backdrop of numerous neighborhood meetings (often unofficial for lack of proper
notice) and multiple applications with confusing Plans and Plats let me consider another sore
subject: staking. At the July 3, 2023 meeting I was initially unsure what this meant and what the
Page 70
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 3
stakes might look like. Obviously I had never read any of the rezoning application forms line by
line and checkbox by checkbox. The next day I hiked the Thumb Trail and made a point to return
by walking the 685 west boundary being careful to trespass on the west side of the property line
as nearly as I could follow it. The staking was obvious and it was also obviously not there when I
walked that line a couple of weeks earlier with my GPS to get an estimate of grade on the
nominally steepest part of the property.
As Mr. Theis explained at the July 3rd meeting, when he signed the current (5 lots total original)
application on May 30, 2023 he was assured by the surveyors that the lots would be staked the
next day. In fact, it is safe to say that the property remained unstaked for the entire month of
June. Looking back at all of the previous series of applications posted to the Town web site (39
lots, Dec 3, 2022; 30 lots, Mar 15, 2023; and 26 lots, May 10, 2023; all now withdrawn) all three
explicitly or implicitly have the Yes checkbox marked affirmatively on the line that reads, “Site
staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete?”
The first two applications appear to share the same application pages, dating back to Nov 3,
2022, except for the number of lots on the Proposed Land Use line. Staking 39 lots for the initial
application would have been a significant undertaking and it is difficult to suppose that staking
that many lots would not have also made a pronounced visual impression even to casual passers
by. The third application has a new Plan marked Final and a new Statement of Intent but no new
application pages that I could find. It is identified on the Town web site as “updated” and may
have been treated implicitly as an amended application.
Completed Application forms also include an Applicant Certification page on which Applicant
certifies “that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge…” While it is always difficult to be sure about what another person does or does
not know it is pretty clear that no stakes were put in place until July 3, 2023. What is the penalty
for mistakenly checking the Yes box multiple times? It looks like a large reward.
II. Rezone 685 Peak View
This section deals with the application submitted June 7, 2023 which was updated June 26, 2023
in order to change the number of 1/2 acre lots from 4 down to 3 which avoids the need for Open
Space (4 lots total). Also as part of this application, the Coyote Ridge Subdivision (CRS)
Preliminary Plat was submitted on June 29, 2023 and updated August 4, 2023. That update was
to correct the Application from Rezoning to Preliminary Subdivision Plat. There is also an
updated CRS Preliminary Plat No. 2 dated August 3, 2023 extracted from the Planning Commission
Packet for the August 15th meeting. Compared to the original Plat this map has a great deal more
information (very cluttered) including contour lines and vegetation (mostly trees, somewhat
casually placed relative to the 2019 Larimer County GIS maps based on aerial photos) and some
of the lot areas are slightly different. For example, Lot 1 has all the same perimeter dimensions
but slightly more area — 11 square feet more which is a 0.049% change and totally ignorable.
In spite of what he said towards the abrupt end of the infamous July 3, 2023 neighborhood
meeting, I firmly believe there is a glint in the Applicant’s eye about where he wants to go and
how he will now try to get there. By itself this application does not make sense. All prior
applications subdivided the entire 7.62 acres and essentially got nowhere. The idea of a few
Page 71
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 4
larger (1/2 acre and 1/4+ acre) lots made its appearance in the third application (May 10th, now
withdrawn) and the larger lots started in the southwest (lower left) corner of the property just as
they do in the present case.
Indeed, this application plat looks a lot like the May 10, 2023 application plan with only the
three southwest corner lots, no open space, and perhaps a better road. The result is that a lot of
neighborhood objections are minimized or eliminated. Also the rezoning from E-1 to E seems
more consistent with surrounding neighborhoods then the R-1 zoning requested in prior
applications. (I find the nomenclature for Estes Park residential zoning confusing: E-1 is less
dense that E but R-1 is more dense than R.)
It should also be emphasized that one major neighborhood concern is not addressed by this
application, namely, that there should be no change to the historic E-1 zoning.
So what would be achieved in this rezoning? Mr. Theis could proceed with subdivision followed
by selling lots or building and selling houses, both of which permit him to recoup some or all of
his purchase price. His remaining 5.83 acres would then be a great deal more valuable to sell or
perhaps develop into the unfinished part of the May 10, 2023 application. The precedent for up
zoning to higher densities would already be in place although there might be three more neighboring
households in opposition. In other words, all of this serves to benefit one man, Mr. Theis. It has a
name but is not mentioned in the EPDC. I checked.
As with the Planning Department Memo for the May 16, 2023 Planning Commission meeting,
the Memo prepared for the August 15, 2023 Commission meeting recommends approval of the
Application be forwarded to the Town Board of Trustees. To this end, I find that the Memo is
quick to emphasize that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the neighborhood and with
nearby growth patterns when, in fact, some numbers are wrong and some conclusions are more
fanciful than factual. The Memo is also excessively reliant on statements and key findings drawn
from the 2023 HNA report. While this is not surprising, much of that report is so strongly focused on
attainable, affordable, and workforce housing that it does not provide a sound basis for the
rezoning requested in this application. Additionally, the Memo takes no notice of defects in
procedure and the more than 1600 people signing a petition in opposition. An objectively
balanced Memo to the Trustees would not suffer these short comings.
I live in Koral Heights located in unincorporated Larimer County and our zoning is EV E-1 (Estate)
with minimum lot size of 1 acre. The Memo (p.8 Adjacent Zoning and Context) uses EV E1 Estate. I
am not going to quibble about the hyphen or the precise verbal suffix except to note a source of
confusion over the hyphen: Larimer County Land Use Code (November 28, 2022) Article 13.2
uses the hyphen in conformance with Estes Park practice. That makes sense. However, Larimer
County Zoning Districts Map – Estes Valley Planning Area (April 2021) does not use the hyphen.
The other two references in the Memo dealing with surrounding zoning areas sidestep the issue
by just referring to us as Unincorporated Larimer County as if we were some kind of pariah .
(p.8 Zoning [Map] and p.9 Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary)
While I am dealing with that paragraph, there is a typo made twice: the minimum acreage size
for R zoning is 1/4 acre and not 1/2 acre. My own analysis of the lot sizes in the Prospect Mountain
PUD gives slightly different figures but confirms that the person writing that paragraph was
Page 72
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 5
using the correct 1/4 acre lot threshold. Since that person began a summary sentence with “Of
note…” I will note that my analysis indicates that 14 (37%) of the 38 lots are less than 1/4 acre in
size (nonconforming). I am not sure what the point is with nonconformance in surrounding
properties often platted long ago but there is a lot of it, especially in E-1 zones in Estes Park.
Consider, for example, the two lots (0.88 and 0.84 acres) on the south side of Peak View Drive
at the Devon –Juniper intersection or the case of Dekker Circle on the south side of Peak View
Drive across from the Prospect Mountain PUD in which 13 out of 14 lots are nonconforming.
Finally, this paragraph does misrepresent some germane facts and it is a misrepresentation that
was also repeated orally by one or more people from the Town and/or on the Commission at the
meeting on August 15, 2023. It is that the R zoned Prospect Mountain PUD contains numerous
small (some nonconforming) properties and “the proposed rezoning of 1.78 acres from E-1 to E
will create a transition between the higher density development pattern to the west and the larger
lot sizes east and south of the subject property.” Emphasis added.
In fact, the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View can not create such a transition zone because
that zone already exists on the eastern and southern boundaries of the Prospect Mountain PUD.
The two largest lots on the eastern side (0.58 and 0.73 acres) define the western boundary of the
685 property and the third lot on the eastern side (0.51 acre) abuts Koral Heights. The 0.73 and
0.46 acre lots which define the southeast corner of the PUD provide a better transition to the
oversize lots in the Peak View Subdivision than could be achieved by the 0.52 acre Lot 1 in the
proposed rezoning. The smaller (0.46 acre) of these two corner lots in the PUD also provides
better transition to the nonconforming lots in the Majestic Pines Subdivision across Peak View
Drive (Dekker Circle).
Now if Lot 1 of the proposed rezoning were a one acre lot that could indeed provide a better
transition to the larger than one acre lots to the south. If the other two lots in the proposed
rezoning were also one acre in size they could also provide better transition to the larger than one
acre lots to the southeast depending, of course, on what eventually happens to the 685 property
between the one acre lots and the southeast boundary.
All of this is highly speculative but I would like the speculation to at least take into account what
is already on the ground. And that is the Prospect Mountain PUD. Of the 14 nonconforming
properties only five border Peak View Drive and of these five, two are only nonconforming by one
one hundredth of an acre and consist of a duplex facing onto the turn around circle at the west end
of Darcy Dr. This means that their backyards stretch down to Peak View Dr. and one of these is a
triangular yard which only borders Peak View Drive by about 16 feet. Thus out of 38 properties,
only three of the nonconforming properties have any significant border along Peak View Dr (465
and 469 Marcus Ln. and 475 Peak View Dr.). There is one other nonconforming lot (565A Devon)
which borders Devon Drive as it curves through the PUD. The remaining 8 nonconforming lots are
hidden away on the two short dead-end streets, Darcy Dr. and Marcus Ln. (about 700 and 600 feet
long respectively). And by hidden, I mean if not camouflaged, at least obscure or out of sight from
main roads (Devon and Peak View). For example, Darcy initially goes a little uphill and then drops
down slightly in elevation from its intersection with Devon and it curves slightly to the south so
that the most egregious of the small lots and the single triplex built across them are extremely
difficult to see by walking or traveling in a car along Devon. It takes favorable light and prior
Page 73
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 6
knowledge of what one is looking for. All of this may be confusing in which case consult
Appendix A which lists the 14 nonconforming lots by the streets which their boundaries border.
The Prospect Mountain PUD is instructive in another important way. Along Peak View Drive the
typography changes significantly roughly at the Devon intersection. To the east of this intersection
the upward slope is fairly gentle, rising about 15 to 20 feet over the first 100 feet north of the
pavement edge along Peak View Drive. Further to the north the grade increases somewhat up to
roughly a line defined by Devon and Darcy at which point there is further increase in grade on up
towards the Thumb. This permits a setback of about 100 feet from the Peak View pavement edge
for the first row of four dwellings (two duplexes) facing onto Devon with backyards towards
Peak View. All four lots are under 1/2 acre but the combination of setback and grade make them
ideally recessive.
West of the Devon intersection the hillside rises sharply so that development is forced much
closer to Peak View or is built much higher on the slope facing onto Darcy Drive or Marcus
Lane. (West of 475 Peak View Drive only side or backyards actually border Peak View.) In both
cases the properties west of Devon are more visually intrusive than those east of Devon when
driving or walking along Peak View Drive.
This suggests that ideal development location begins with a setback of about 100 feet from Peak
View Drive at an elevation of 15 to 20 feet above the road pavement. Since the 685 Peak View
property is an eastern extension of Prospect Mountain PUD one would expect that it would support
development locations meeting those ideals at least on the western side where the proposed 1/2
acre lots are located. Unfortunately, the Coyote Ridge Subdivision starts off on the wrong foot. The
typography is appropriate but the lots are not ideally shaped. They are a little small and definitely
too rectangular, i.e., east/west dimension is too long and north/south dimension too short.
Consequently, the 100 foot setback distance falls 10 feet north of the midpoint on the Lot 1 west
boundary at a height of about 15 feet. An eastern extension of this west boundary point parallel
to the south boundary encroaches on the southeast corner of Lot 2 at a height about 10 feet above
Peak View pavement. In other words, development respecting the 100 foot setback consistent
with property to the west would be unrealistically confined to a small pie slice along the north
and west property boundaries of Lot 1 as shown in Appendix B.
Note that there is nothing in these setback and height figures that implies any kind of building
restriction on the proposed Lot 1. It is simply to show that every reasonable building location
would prove more intrusive, to greater or lesser degree depending on design and landscaping, than
what presently exists immediately to the west. Of course if Lot 1 were a one acre lot (like it should
be) life could be different.
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.
Section 3.3.D of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) is called Standards for Review and
lists three conditions which must be satisfied by all applications for rezoning. The words in bold
face above are the complete and exact statement of the first condition. Rezone means to change or
amend the body of text which specifies the zoning of every property in Estes Park. I have no
Page 74
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 7
trouble with the Applicant using the word “rezoning” in place of “amendment” in the Statement
of Intent which accompanies the updated Plan filed on June 26, 2023. In some respects rezoning
clarifies what is requested here and I will continue to refer to it that way. But deep down in the
world of legal language keep in mind that it is an amendment.
I find the statement to be relatively straightforward to understand as follows. “Changes in conditions”
is expressed in the present tense and therefore refers to recent or current events as opposed to
ancient history for which one might use the more inclusive “changed conditions” and the “areas
affected” phrase restricts these changes to the property of interest, 685 Peak View Drive in this
case. Whatever may happen short of a sky scraper on the other side of town is not of concern.
The only real question is how close or nearby the changes must be to affect the property of
interest sufficiently to justify rezoning. I also consider that the character and size of the changes
are factors in what this distance should be. Constructing a multi-family residential development
on the four Koral Heights lots immediately across Devon Drive (Prospector South if you wish)
would definitely be of concern. Building a significantly scaled down version of that project on
lots at the north end of Koral Heights may or may not be of concern to 685 though it would
certainly increase traffic on Juniper Drive and/or Prospect Mountain Road and would still be of
great concern to closer lots in town and county.
The Town of Estes Park, on the other hand, enlarges the meaning of “changes in conditions” to
include abstract demographic changes which exist only in a Town or Valley wide sense. It is
not obvious how this kind of generalization coexists with areas affected which implies two kinds
of limitation, a geographical restriction as noted above and the requirement of “an effect strong
enough to evoke a reaction” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language,
Second College Edition, 1980). How is it that a demographic change can be specific to a
particular area that is small compared to the area defining that condition? And how is it that a
demographic change can actually have an effect on such a particular area? And what would that
effect be and how would it be measured?
There is also some difficulty with the word “address” as used in this context which I take to be
address an issue. In particular there seems to be no clear cut distinction between acknowledge
the issue and solve the issue. For address used this way a common synonym is deal with which
generally places a greater emphasis on solving problems rather than just acknowledging them.
Clearly one would like to solve problems by rezoning but in the case of abstract demographic
changes that places a more stringent demand on precisely what the problem(s) are, what constitutes
solution, and how a particular rezoning can actually achieve that solution. The word necessary
also gets into the act here. If a particular rezoning is actually necessary then there is no other way
to address the identified abstract demographic change without this rezoning. How rezoning a
particular area, especially a small one, can usefully or functionally address a valley wide
demographic problem strains the imagination.
The abstract demographic change in conditions most commonly cited is primarily the issue of an
increased need for affordable workforce housing as developed in the 2023 and 2016 Housing
Needs Assessments (commonly referred to as HNA reports or studies although the full titles in
both years are somewhat different and longer). These studies extend Estes Park Housing Authority
work dating back to 1989. What is difficult to understand is exactly how a small property is
Page 75
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 8
impacted (affected) by this kind of change in conditions and how rezoning can serve to alter or
solve the problems of insufficient workforce housing. The assertion of a miniscule percentage
improvement will generally provide insufficient basis for rezoning relative to clearly identifiable
harms such as those described in the Introduction to these remarks. Fundamentally, I think the
present development code is simply not up to this kind of use (or abuse).
The arguments above are clearly applicable to issues in the previous (now withdrawn) plans and
signal potential dangers when one tries to extend traditional meanings beyond what zoning was
originally set up to handle. In the present case the explanatory three lines in the Plan lack all
reference to attainable, affordable, or workforce housing. The lines which remain claim the usual
lack of land creating significant change in the land use needs compared to when the property was
originally zoned (no supporting examples are provided).
In other words, our present concern in the Plan before us is exclusively with the lack of availability
of half acre lots zoned E. We are not even interested in whether or not the ultimate owners live
and work in the Estes Valley. It is also curious why the Applicant is requesting to rezone only
enough land for three 1/2 acre lots when the property fully rezoned from E-1 to E could probably
support 10 to 12 such lots. If there is a valley wide need for 1/2 acre lots, how is it fulfilled by just
three such lots carved out of 685 Peak View Drive? At best, that would be stingy.
Something is out of place. Something is missing. This plan has more the character of a plot than
a plat. It is concerned only with 1/2 acre lots and implicitly denies any alleged shortage in these
lots — by only providing three instead of the ten or more such lots it could provide if there were a
genuinely serious deficiency. All we can safely conclude at this point is that there has been no
showing that the amendment is necessary to address any changes in any conditions anywhere.
Therefore there is no basis for the proposed rezoning.
While I consider the above analysis accurate and the conclusion correct, it lies beyond what the
Planning Department is prepared to discuss. Therefore I will turn to what the Memo does discuss
with the insistence that this discussion falls on base and irrelevant foundations. Keep in mind that
the HNA reports are strongly biased towards the problems of attainable, affordable, and
workforce housing. Begin with the first bulleted key point and corresponding example in the
2023 HNA that illustrates a change in conditions:
• A Priority Action to “Increase Housing Supply.” (Strategic Plan, p.7)
This is not a sentence which is not a good way to start. Rather, it is compounded from the overall
section title Priority Actions stripped to the singular starting at the top of Strategic Plan Page 4
and the second of five such priority actions called Increase Housing Supply beginning on
Strategic Plan Page 7. It is not clear whether this refers to the first paragraph of this second
Priority Action or the whole section which includes six subsections and extends over five pages
(Strategic Plan Pages 7-11). I will proceed with the worse case — it means to point to the
complete section spread over 5 pages.
The introductory paragraph sets the tone: “Housing production has not kept up with job growth
in the region, with particularly severe impacts to working age households. The Needs Assessment
establishes that more housing is needed across a wide range of price points, tenure, size and type
Page 76
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 9
(duplex, triplex, apartments, small houses, etc.).” While et cetera includes an unspecified range,
the emphasis is clearly on attainable, affordable, and workforce housing.
I don't need to quote anymore. I have read all six subsections and everyone is concerned with
attainable, affordable, and workforce housing. No section directly addresses any housing less
dense or more expensive than what may serve as workforce housing. Therefore this bulleted
point is irrelevant to the rezoning requested.
With the second bullet point on Memo page 4 (PDF page 10) the trouble begins: “The pace of
housing unit growth in the last decade is the slowest since the 1960s.” Figure III-1 on the next
page of the 2023 HNA is meant to illustrate this point and I don't particularly doubt it although the
necessary proof data from 1961-1970 is not shown. It is also not clear how much of the current
decade is included in the phrase Built since 2010. References in the Figure suggest to me that the
data is for the decade 2011-2020 but why couldn’t it just say that? Perhaps there was later data?
This last decade (2011-2020) has been a difficult one, beginning with recovery from the Financial
Crisis of 2008 and ending with the Covid-19 Pandemic. While the economic recovery was steady
through most of the decade, home ownership and family wealth failed to rebound as much as
expected, especially in comparison to recovery from the prior recession of 1991 when those two
measures set record highs. Could this have anything to do with the decade 1991-2000 being the
single decade in which a “quarter of the units in the Town of Estes Park were built” (2023 HNA,
Section 3, Page 2)? In any event it is thus not surprising that new housing in the decade 2011-
2020 was down. It would have been more interesting and constructive to know how it compared
to what appear to be more typical decades, 1971-1990 and, in truth, how it compared to the
reference decade 1961-1970. The percentage figures provided in Figure III-1 are not sufficient to
accurately make those kinds of comparisons. (Web reference: Pew Research Center, “Comparing
two U.S. economic recessions, recoveries” Dec 13, 2019)
Also most of the 2023 HNA report Section I. Demographic Profile shows there were essentially
no significant demographic changes in the Estes Park and Valley over the 2011-2020 decade.
There was a transition to an older population, the population did grow for the first half of the
decade and then declined back to nearly the 2011 starting point, and there was steady job growth
mostly satisfied by new commuters. It is not clear why or how these changes could have
stimulated increased housing construction, especially when viewed against the economic contexts
noted above.
For a Key Finding listed as the very first such finding at the beginning of Section III, Housing
Profile & Affordability Analysis in the 2023 HNA I find the presentation of supporting evidence
disappointing. While I am inclined to view the reduction in housing construction in 2011-2020 in the
context of recovery from the 2008 great recession, especially in contrast to recovery from the earlier
1991 recession, it might also to some extent have been a recognition that the Estes Valley is limited
in size and growth needs to be tempered somewhat relative to that of the prior decade. I know that is
not a phrase welcomed by the Planning Department but one must realistically consider the possibility
of some truth in it. From my perspective excessive growth has ruined what a National Park should be
and it could do the same for the Estes Valley.The second bullet point and its accompanying
Figure III-1 do not explicitly deal with housing needs appropriate to 1/2 acre lots and in other
respects are not persuasive.
Page 77
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 10
The third bullet point in the Staff Discussion on page 4 of the Memo (PDF page 10) is the
celebrated finding that “2720 units will be needed by 2030 to address the current shortage of
workforce housing and the forecasted employment demand.” The ubiquitous Figure III-22 from
2023 HNA Section III, Page 19 is included on the next page of the Memo.
There are a lot of assumptions, values, and forecasts that go into this 2720 integer for the
number of new housing units needed by 2030. The color coded data points across the top of
Figure III-22 denote seven different types of data of which the Units Built figure is likely the
most accurate because, in principle, it involves only straight forward counting of Assessor
records. All of the others come with varying degrees of uncertainty. Worse, when two figures
with known amounts of uncertainty are combined in some way the uncertainty of the result will
be greater than that of either of the two figures with which one begins. In the case of addition,
the result uncertainty will be the sum of the initial uncertainties although the percentage
uncertainty will be intermediate.
Suppose one starts with a value of 100 and an uncertainty of 10. This means the value is highly
likely to lie between 90 and 110. Now add this to a value of 370 whose uncertainty is 50. The
result will be 470 with an uncertainty of 60. Looked at another way, the first figure has a 10%
uncertainty, the second figure a 13.5% uncertainty and the final total figure has a 12.8% uncertainty.
That the percentage uncertainty can be smaller is surprising but it comes about because one divides
by the final number which is larger than either of the starting numbers. This artificial example is
simplistic but the essential point is that input uncertainties lead to output uncertainties. The
2023 HNA report does not carefully track or describes these uncertainties. In other words, we
have absolutely no idea what the accuracy of the 2720 figure might reasonably be.
As an example of how 2023 HNA ignores these issues, consider Figure III-23 (Section III, Page
20) which provides a table with the numbers required to calculate the housing unit need for
in-commuters in 2015 and 2022. There is no mention of input uncertainties or the range of error
one might expect in the output value of 650 for the in-commuter housing need in 2022. I find that
omission unacceptable in a multi-year planning document.
Moreover, I do not consider that the two sentences devoted to this Figure provide an accurate
description: “The percentage of the workforce commuting has increased from 2015 as has the
size of the overall workforce. The compound effect is that a modest increase in the commuter rate
represents nearly a doubling in the number of units needed to accommodate those commuters
who want to live in Estes Park” [emphasis added using bold font]. The first sentence is trivial
and unimpeachable. The second sentence in italics is more or less wrong and totally misleading.
The Commuter rate is the fraction or percentage of Employees who are in-commuters. Using the
numbers in this Table for 2015 one has 6309 Employees and 1020 in-commuters so the
Commuter rate fraction is 1020/6309 = 0.1617 which can also be expressed as the Commuter
rate percentage 16% where in the first case I have rounded the decimal fraction to 4 digits and in
the second case rounded the percentage to two digits which is how it is given in Figure III-23.
Similarly for the 2022 figures the Commuter rate fraction is 1925/6615 = 0.2910 or as a percentage,
29% (in the prior expressions the forward slash indicates division for which one could also use the
division symbol ÷).
Page 78
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 11
The Commuter housing needs which equals the product of the Commuter rate percentage and the
number of jobs available and an overall scaling factor treated as a constant were 340 units in 2015
and 650 units in 2022 resulting in an increase in need of 650 – 340 = 310 units. The fractional
increase in need relative to the 2015 value is 310/340 = 0.9118 which we can also express as a
91% increase. That amounts to the “nearly a doubling” as claimed.
At this point we have three percentage values on the table: the Commuter rate percentages, 16%
for 2015 and 29% for 2022 (calculated two paragraphs up) and the 91% increase in commuter
housing need over that same time period as calculated in the preceeding paragraph.
Where the 2023 HNA report writer erred was in looking at these various percentages, noting that the
Commuter rate percent values changed by 13 percentage points (16% to 29% but note — this is a
difference in percentage values and not any kind of percentage change in those percentages) and
thinking of that change as “modest” compared to the 91% increase (nearly a doubling) in number
of housing units needed for 2022 compared to 2015. In a certain perverse sense it is modest but
the two numbers have little to do with one another so the observation is of no value. The
difference in two numbers is totally different from the percent change in these two numbers. In this
discussion the numbers happen to be percentages but that is irrelevant. They are just numbers for
which there is a difference, 29% – 16% = 13%, all of these being percentage values and not
percentage changes. Percentage changes of percentages is rarely encountered in my experience.
One can not say that the two percentages are totally unrelated because the number of in-commuters
in need of Estes Valley housing can be framed in terms of the Commuter rate fraction or
percentage. Consequently, there are some mathematical subtleties in need of attention which I
provide in Appendix C. Those ill-equipped to wade through this Appendix will hopefully trust
my explanations and take some comfort in the fact that the 2023 HNA report writer also did not
fully understand what is going on.
In my view, the damage done by the way in which the report was written (aside from it being
incorrect) is to accustom the reader to the idea that modest changes can produce big effects. In
some instances this is certainly true. There are an enormous number of details in this report and
as the mind becomes overloaded with detail there may be the temptation to treat the aggregate as
modest and somewhat ignorable and just accept the surprisingly large final number, 2720 in the
present case. That is sophistry, not social science. To repeat what I wrote above, we have no idea
how accurate 2720 might be.
There is more to say about the 2023 HNA report and the 2720 number which I will return to
below. For now, I move on to the other four bullet points in this section of the Memo all of
which reference Section IV of the 2023 HNA report which is called Community Engagement
Findings and describes the Estes Valley 2022 Housing Survey (882 total responses, 190 Spanish
speakers) and Stakeholder Interviews (with invited participants including developers, economic
development organizations, social service providers, and employers). “A list of stakeholder
participants was consolidated by Town staff” (Section IV, Page 21). Although correctly used and
dictionary definition perfect, consolidated strikes me as kind of an odd word in this context;
prepared would have been my choice. Both words mean the Town selected the stakeholders and
that concerns me since the Town, or at least the Planning Department, has a biased interest in the
results.
Page 79
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 12
In reading the Stakeholder Perspectives (Section IV, pages 21-25) the statements are overwhelmingly
focused on availability and affordability of housing and on residents in need of substantial social
service support. This may reflect the choice of questions as much as any bias in the selection of
stakeholders. Those questions concerned “housing needs, workforce needs, development, and
housing market trends in the Estes Valley” (Section IV, page 21). It is also possible and reasonable
that different sets of questions were asked of stakeholders based on areas of experience and expertise.
My worry is about the extent to which the stakeholder and question field is adequately level, i.e.,
free of bias.
One should also note that where Bullet Point 4 introduces the quoted phrase with “stakeholders
noted” which is technically correct, the actual paragraph in 2023 HNA at the bottom of Section
IV, Page 3 introduces that phrase with “Residential developers highlighted” which may explain
some personal interests in “incentives, subsidies, etc.” Thus wording in the Planning Department
Memo deliberately discards information about the stakeholders making the claims in bullet
point 4. Was this necessary? Does it help me not to worry about bias?
Interestingly, the EstesForward Comprehensive Plan includes a 248 page Appendix C in which
stakeholders are identified by agency or organization and there are nearly endless pages of
questions and responses for various interview and listening sessions. That may be excessive. I have
yet to read all of those questions and responses and hope I never do but they are there when needed.
The 2023 HNA report is known to be deficient in the handling of uncertainties in numeric data. It is
also easy to appreciate how the choice of questions and/or the choice of stakeholders might prejudice
the conclusions used in bullet points 4, 6, and 7. Generalizing from mere numbers, over all I find
the 2023 HNA report deficient in documenting the bases for its conclusions.
The best that can be done is to use what is available. Bullet points 4, 6, and 7 reference
summaries of stakeholder opinions all of which specifically include words and phrases such as:
attainable, affordable and workforce development (point 4); reasonably priced housing, affordable
housing (point 6); affordable housing solutions (point 7). The primary concerns in all of these
stakeholder perspectives are with ways to increase the number of affordable dwelling units.
The question for rezoning is what will three 1/2 acre lots do for these issues? Especially three lots
which may well be some of the last lots in the Estes Valley with grand views towards Mount
Meeker and Longs Peak. Be a lucky buyer and build a mountain mansion. And if that is not obvious,
my answer is that rezoning these three lots will do absolutely nothing for any of the issues in
bullet points 4, 6, and 7.
As for bullet point 5, it faithfully reports what is written in 2023 HNA for Figure IV-8 (Memo,
page 6; Section IV, page 13). Faithful reporting, however, does not preclude serious questions.
How is difficulty in finding housing which meets personal needs in the Estes Valley germane to
the rezoning application before us? Susan and I certainly had difficulties in our property search in
1993 but I never imagined that they should be the basis for any kind of rezoning. Could three
more 1/2 acre lots for the occupants of about 1236 rental households and 650 in-commuters who
want to live in the Estes Valley make a noticeable difference? The Planning Department Memo
writer optimistically argues that rezoning “can be one small step to alleviate the housing
shortage” (Memo, page 6). How small? Consider 3/(1236+650) = 3/1886 = 0.001591 fractional
difference (= 0.1591% difference). Alternatively, forget about the details and just consider
Page 80
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 13
3/2720 = 0.001103 fractional difference (= 0.1103% difference). We all know where the 2720
comes from; we just don’t know its real value. Also, keep in mind that these small figures are
upper limits which depend on all three of the lots (or lots with houses) being sold to renters or
in-commuters covered by the 2023 HNA report from which I obtained my numbers for renters
and in-commuters. See references below. In place of the “one small step” line I think a more
accurate line would be “one vanishingly small step…” which, as a practical matter, is probably
indistinguishable from zero. [References: (a). 1236 rental households figure: About 9510 Estes
Valley housing units × 0.13 fraction renter occupied = 1236 occupied rental housing units. Section
III page 2 and Figure III-2 on page 3; and (b) number of in-commuters who want to live in Estes
Valley, 2022 figure = 650. Section III, Figure III-23, page 20.]
Is “one small step” even possible? The answer to this question depends on how much these
properties will cost when built with a suitable single family dwelling unit (as required by the E
zoning). While this is getting way beyond any expertise I may have, I can point out one example
as a starting point: the house Mr. Theis finished building this past February at 1151 Saxon Court
just off the west side of Hwy. 7 a little north of Lexington Lane. The Saxon Ct. property is 1230
square feet with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, and two car attached garage on 0.33 acres for $674,000.
One can expect that the three 1/2 acre lots from the proposed rezoning will cost more because
they are larger, are located in a much nicer residential area of the Town, and potentially have
picture window access to splendid mountain vistas. In my opinion, the exterior design will also
have to be upgraded relative to the Saxon Court property to better fit into the surrounding
neighborhood. Accordingly, my guestimate is that the properties will at minimum cost in the
range of $750,000 to $800,000 and this is in the range of sale prices over the past three years of
homes in the Prospect Mountain PUD immediately to the west of the proposed rezoning, none of
which were purchased by full time residents. (Reference is the March 23, 2023 Public Comment
from Michael Bryson, President on behalf of the Prospect Mountain Townhome Association, Inc.)
An estimate of the annual income required to afford one of these properties from the Google
Mortgage Loan Calculator (how much house can i afford) on September 19, 2023 assuming $400
per month credit card debt, $60,000 down payment, 30 year fixed rate loan in Colorado for good
to excellent credit scores (700 up to 799 in 19 point intervals) and interest rates in the 8.483% to
8.264% range was that a $250,000 annual income was sufficient to purchase properties in the
range from $786,700 to $798,500. The 2022 Larimer County 2-Person 100% AMI is $85,900
(Estes Park Housing Authority, Cutoff Date 6.3.2022) so this income places one in the
$250,000/$85,900 = 2.91 = 291% AMI bracket which is way beyond any incomes covered in the
2023 HNA report (except for the over 200% AMI line in Figure III-26 which in principle could
include such incomes). Indeed, that report is limited to incomes up to 120% AMI except in the
following three Figures:
Figure III-19, Section III, page 16 (200% AMI)
Figure III-21, Section III, page 18 (200% AMI)
Figure III-26, Section III, page 23 (over 200% AMI).
In conclusion, the rezoning proposed in this application does not address any of the housing
needs identified in bullet points 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Page 81
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 14
I remarked above that I would have more to say about the 2023 HNA report and the 2720 figure.
In pointing out in connection with bullet point 5 above that the 2023 HNA is primarily concerned
with AMI ranges up to 120% and therefore has essentially no relevance to prospective buyers
who could afford one of the proposed 1/2 acre lots, I covered what I intended to discuss about
the overall character of the 2023 HNA report. What I would like to do to the 2720 number is
totally shred it, in part, because that is what I think it is worth.
However, I have neither the data nor the time and perhaps not even the skills to do that. Nonetheless
that does not make 2720 totally safe. The fourth bullet point key finding on the first page of
Section III in the 2023 HNA is perhaps worth quoting in full:
2720 units will be needed by 2030 to address the current shortage of workforce housing
and forecasted employment demand. Two thirds of these units are needed at price-points
affordable to households earning less than 120% AMI; 21% are needed for households
earning less than 30% AMI.
This certainly underlines my prior remarks about 2023 HNA being primarily concerned with
workforce and affordable housing and largely limited to less than 120% AMI. It also emphasises
that the report is primarily built around an existing shortage of workforce housing and forecasted
employment demand and those two conditions are often included in references to 2023 HNA.
However, there is a totally different way to approach the need for additional housing, namely,
population change. Long term growth trends project an Estes Valley population of about 12,600
in 2030 up from about 11,900 residents in 2020. This is a 10 year increase of about 700 residents
for a 10 year growth rate of 0.0588 = 5.9% (Section I, page 3).
The overall average household size in the Estes Valley is 2.0 persons (Section I, Figure I-10, page 7)
which means only about 350 additional housing units are actually needed by 2030 to accomodate
700 more people. This is almost a factor of 10 disagreement with the advertised 2720 number
from Figure III-22 (Section 3, page 19). Strictly, it is only off by 7.77 which is still huge. Two
parts of 2023 HNA are in serious disagreement with one another.
Figures I-2 and I-3 (both on Section I, page 3) presents two problems. In Figure I-2 showing
projected and estimated Town and Estes Valley populations from 2000 to 2030 there us an
unexplained step in the Estes Valley population between 2020 and 2021. Thereafter, the total
Estes Valley population appears to increase at a more or less constant rate out to 2030. My efforts
to capture a high resolution screen image from the PDF file of 2023 HNA were unsuccessful. It is
just page decoration.
Figure I-3 gives a 2020 Estes Valley population of 11761 (source: 2020 Census) compared to the
“about” 11,900 residents used in the Estes Valley long-term growth projection above. This is
about a 1.2% difference, small enough to provide some comfort in the starting population growth
value. The more worrisome uncertainties here are the annual growth rates over 10 years. When
assumed to be constant, the growth formula (3) can be solved for 0.57% annual growth. For
reference that basic growth formula is
0 (1 )
N
NP P r= +(3)
Page 82
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 15
where 0P is the initial population, NP is the population after N years and r is the fractional
annual growth rate assumed constant for all years considered (it is not the percentage annual
growth rate). In this case r = 0.005732 to four significant figures and the corresponding annual
percentage rate is 0.5732%. That is good enough to get 12,600 from formula (3) when rounded
to an integer number of people.
I don't know how to reconcile these two predictions of housing need by 2030. We certainly do
not need many more housing units than there are people to fill them. I also do not know what
assumptions go into the long term population forecast except that the references to Figure I-2
(Section I, page 3) are DOLA, ACS 5-year estimates and OPS Strategies which are standard
sources for most of what has gone into 2023 HNA. Population growth forecast probably does not
include “2022 Existing Need” which is a large part of the 2720 figure and which I am inclined to
consider with the same degree of skepticism as the 2720 figure. And certainly there is existing
housing need especially at 80 to 120% AMI or less. Even so the gulf between the two forecasts
seems excessive.
The final paragraph in this section of the Memo at the bottom of page 6 begins, “Development
decades ago and more recent residential development changed conditions in areas directly
adjacent and in the general vicinity of the proposed rezoning.“ The paragraph follows up with
references to the Prospect Mountain PUD Subdivision developed in the early 1980s which is
adjacent to the subject property and to the Peak View and Prospector Apartments developed in
2020 and currently under construction respectively which must be the more recent residential
developments changing conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed rezoning. But note,
there is no claim that any changes in condition actually affected or are currently affecting
the 685 Peak View Drive property. Hence there is no basis whatsoever in these developments,
whether historic or current, to rezone the 685 Peak View Dr. property as requested in the present
application
Just for good measure let me clean up some sloppy distance estimates in the Memo. The
following measurements were made by driving my 2000 Toyota with its trip indicator set to 0.1
mile precision along Peak View Dr. to its intersection with Hwy 7 (officially, S. Saint Vrain Ave.
or Colorado 7), turning north, and driving along Hwy 7 to the indicated Apartment complex. I
make the following definitions:
1. 685 Peak View Drive is defined as the point along Peak View Drive midway between the
intersections with Longs and Twin Drives.
2. Distance to Peak View Apts. is defined as to the the Entry Turn off Hwy 7.
3. Distance to Prospector Apts is defined as to point along Hwy 7 midway between Golf Course
Rd. and Lexington Ln.
Measured distances from 685 Peak View Drive are:
To Peak View Apts = 0.45 miles (compare to 1/3 mile in Memo)
To Prospector Apts = 1.00 miles (compare to 1/2 mile in Memo, as bird flies)
Page 83
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 16
Both of these Apartment developments are along Hwy 7, one of the three primary roads in the
Estes Valley (US34, US36, and Colo 7 = Hwy 7). I consider that Koral Heights and 685 Peak
View Dr. are sufficiently distant from Hwy 7 that there is no impact or affect or change in
conditions on these properties from these apartment developments. Yes, I do hear traffic noise
from Hwy 7 but not from parking lot noise at Peak View Apartments and no known construction
noise from the Propector site.
Somewhat ironically, relative to the numerous prior rezoning proposals, this proposal deflects
many of the neighborhood objections while at the same time voiding essentially all of the
arguments based on affordable workforce housing which derive from 2023 HNA. As previously
noted, for the proposed rezoning, 2023 HNA is simply irrelevant (except for the one small step
argument which I have shown to be no more than a vanishingly small step possibility). That is
where I am leaving it.
There has been no showing of need for three 1/2 acre lots at 685 Peak View Drive and
therefore no basis for the proposed rezoning.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley.
For starters, the exact Development Code text quoted above in bold face begins with development
plan and not concept plan which is what was submitted with the ammended application on June
28, 2023 (4 lots total). The Coyote Ridge Subdivision, also submitted on June 28, 2023 has only
a Preliminary Plat (different in several respects from the Concept Plan — see Appendix D).
Section 3.3.B.1 of the EPDC allows for Staff to waive a development plan “if it finds that the
projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed
development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver.” There is no requirement that Staff
provide reasons.
The Planning Department Memo to the Planning Commission on August 15, 2023 with respect
to the Applicant’s June 28th (4 lot) application cites three instances of prior rezoning applications
in which a development plan was waived as providing precedent for exercise of that option (p. 7
of Memo). Two of the three citations (Lot 2 of Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision and “Fish Hatchery”)
are properties acquired by EPHA or owned by the Town and currently under development by or
in cooperation with these agencies. I fail to see any precedent in these two examples for waiver
of development plan for applications from individuals. The other cited example is 507 Grand
Estates Drive in which the Planning Department Staff provides reasons for waiver of development
plan, in this case “because of the small size and limited complexity associated with potential
multi-family development.” In connection with this work I have reviewed a number of rezoning
applications over the past several months and not found any waivers granted without reasons or
explanations. I am sure there are exceptions but the norm seems to be explanations for waivers.
(Comment: I highly recommend looking at the 507 Grand Estates Drive application. Not
everything went smoothly but it seems to me to be an excellent example of what a small scale
Page 84
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 17
application should be in a way that the CMS Planning and Development applications for 685
Peak View Drive provide excellent examples of what such an application should not be.)
In the current Memo from Planning Department to Planning Commission, Staff adds an interesting
new wrinkle to buttress Staff refusal to provide reason(s) for waiver of development plan in this
particular instance. It sounds authoritative, even militaristic: “This type of development does not
trigger a requirement for a Development Plan under criteria within Section 3.8 of the EPDC.” Of
course not! Section 3.8.B and accompanying Table 3-3 establish a requirement for development
plan review, which cannot be waived, for a very narrow and restricted subset of Residential
Development applications based on Ord. 8-05#1. It is mostly limited to applications involving
New Dwellings, Guest Units, RV pad/campsites, and parking spaces. Especially parking spaces
and their orientation.
The failure of Staff to provide reasons for waiver of development plan is profoundly disappointing
in this instance when applicant has been so disrespective of normal procedures, has offered so
many variants of “concept” plans, has generated so much public opposition, and has failed to
have a functional community meeting for the plan that is actually before us at present. As for the
partial overlap of the preliminary plat with a Development Plan, I am not impressed. First of all,
on June 28, 2023 an amended rezoning application (from 5 lots total to 4 lots total) was filed by
CMS Planning & Development which includes a revised concept plan and on the same day the
Coyote Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat was also filed by CMS Planning & Development
with a much more professional site plan prepared by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying and
the two maps do not even agree as to location and layout of the three lots for which rezoning is
requested. Certainly the differences are not huge but they are big enough to easily show up when
overlayed on letter size sheets of paper (see Appendix D). Does anyone at CMS Planning &
Development and the TEP Planning Department really care about what is being requested in this
rezoning application?
With respect to the grading and drainage studies, had the July 3rd neighborhood meeting run a
normal course I would have liked some “layman’s explanation” for why the road is placed in a
trench which looks to be up to 10 feet deep along a significant fraction of its course and also
results in considerable steep grading along the eastern lot boundaries, especially for Lot 2.
Standing at the stakes marking the intersection with Peak View Drive it just doesn’t look to me
like all this digging is really necessary or optimal. It also raises concerns about runoff to
properties across Peak View Drive whose owners have already noted uncontrolled runoff from
the property as it is (December 15, 2022 public meeting). Also, what kinds of assumptions were
made with respect to runoff entering the evaluation basin from the north side of Devon Drive?
There is potentially a significant source of runoff from steep open slopes (i.e., not heavily
forested) up towards the Thumb Open Space. These kinds of questions may already have been
answered in the Peak Runoff Table at the end of the Preliminary Drainage Report. It isn’t Greek
to me but it is also not English.
The remainder of this section of the Memo in support of the second requirement which every
rezoning application must satisfy is primarily about compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan.
To that end my remarks will begin with two quotations from that Plan:
Page 85
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 18
THE VISION
Our community works together as responsible stewards of our irreplaceable mountain
surroundings to support residents and welcome visitors by preserving and enhancing our
quality of life, sense of community, economic vitality, and health of the natural
environment. (p.6)
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
The Future Land Use categories and map are aspirational. They do not alter, circumvent,
or supersede established zoning, recorded subdivisions, or approved development plans.
The zoning map and development codes are not changed as a result of the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan or Future land Use Plan, Categories, or Map. (p.75)
The Future Land Use Map appears on page 74 of the Comprehensive Plan and the Legend on page 75
along with some guidelines to appropriate use and the quoted text above. For emphasis that quoted
text appears on page 75 in an upper case enlarged sans-serif font in a maroon sort of color. My
quotation above omits a final sentence exempting Federal Lands. Except for the first sentence (hence
the italics) the quotation above appears in the lower right corner of printed copies of the Future Land
Use Map with a couple of word changes of no great significance, e.g., the opening pronoun “They” is
replaced by the appropriate subject.
As THE VISION suggests the Comprehensive Plan is idealistic and sweeping in scope. There is no
possible way to realize this town in this valley on this earth in all of our lifetimes. It is a grand
and glorious goal unfortunately limited in many ways, not the least being economic reality.
Without exception, every reference to the Comprehensive Plan on page 8 in the the Planning
Department Memo concerned with the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning application presently
before us is focused on affordable workforce housing, sometimes masked by phrases such as
“the higher density proposed by the rezoning can help this” or “smaller lots with smaller
footprints for developments can help this.”
The point of my 1151 Saxon Court example above (page 13) is that 1/2 acre lots with houses
appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood are at this time totally incompatible with affordable
workforce housing. Recall my distinction between “one small step” and “one vanishingly small
step” in the context of what help rezoning could provide (also on page 13 above, starting at bottom
of page 12). The latter size step is indistinguishable from zero. (Of course there is an exception for
those in the workforce earning at or above 290% AMI.)
Two remarks by the Planning Department Memo author(s) remain troubling: in the paragraph at
the bottom of page 6 and at the end of the middle paragraph on page 8 there is the implication
that the Peak View and Prospector Apartments have initiated a trend towards higher-density
residential housing in the general area of 685 Peak View Drive. Both of these developments are
located in the Future Study Area along Hwy 7 on the Opportunity Areas map (Comprehensive
Plan pages 76-77). As noted above (page 16) in Koral Heights I do hear traffic noise from Hwy 7
but by no stretch of the imagination do I consider the increased residential density from these
properties in any way relevant to the subject property almost a half mile away. To the extent that
the Planning Department thinks otherwise, I consider those thoughts seriously misleading and wrong.
Page 86
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 19
There is a final sense of oddness in the way in which page 8 and the top of page 9 are written in
the Planning Department Memo. The issue before us is the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive to
create three 1/2 acre lots and a service road zoned E from the original 7.62 acres, leaving the
remaining property with its single dwelling unit zoned at its historic E-1 level. These are the
summary paragraphs for the requirement of compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and
existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. The oddness is that every paragraph
and every reference to the Comprehensive Plan is about housing and homes or housing density
and housing affordability. Not a single paragraph, not a single reference, not a single word
addresses the extent to which these three 1/2 acre lots are needed or necessary. And yet that is
the zoning issue before us.
Page 87
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 20
Appendix A. Border Streets for 14 Nonconforming Lots in
Prospect Mountain (PUD) Subdivision
Within boundary street lists, lots are sorted by square footage except for the two largest lots
bordering on Darcy Drive. When lot borders on more than one street, it is listed under primary
street of interest and a note identifies the other street — for example, the first two and last two
lots listed under Peak View Drive.
Lot address indicates this dual relationship (exception is 575A Devon Dr. which borders only on
Darcy Dr. but is part of duplex, the other half of which fronts on Devon Dr which provides the
street address for both units).
Lot Area
Borders Acre Sq Footage Address Type Note
Peak View Dr 0.17 7405 465 Marcus Ln Duplex 1
0.19 8276 469 Marcus Ln Duplex 2
0.22 9388 475 Peak View Dr Single family
0.24 10454 556 Darcy Dr Duplex 3
0.24 10454 558 Darcy Dr Duplex 4
Darcy Dr 0.09 3930 564 Darcy Dr Triplex
0.09 4137 566 Darcy Dr Triplex
0.10 4367 568 Darcy Dr Triplex
0.16 6970 570 Darcy Dr Single family
0.18 7775 572 Darcy Dr Single family
0.22 9565 560 Darcy Dr Single family
0.22 9415 575A Devon Dr Duplex 5
Devon Dr 0.22 9466 565A Devon Dr Duplex
Marcus Ln 0.18 7841 470 Marcus Ln Duplex
Notes:
1. Fronts on Marcus; two story rear deck faces Peak View
2. Fronts on Marcus; two story rear deck faces Peak View
3. Fronts on Darcy, west turn around circle; triangle backyard, about 16 feet along Peak View
4. Fronts on Darcy, west turn around circle; backyard on Peak View
5. Fronts on Darcy; Devon address (B unit fronts on Devon)
Page 88
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 21
Appendix B. Ideal setback distance from Peak View Drive
Measurement methods. I have measured a number of house locations in the Prospect Mountain
PUD along Peak View Dr. using boots and GPS. The pair of hiking boots used for these
measurements are slightly over 12" in length such that 24 steps is 25 feet as measured along a
straight level tape in my garage. The GPS is a Garmin eMap model from about 2000 (pretty old
by consumer electronic standards but treated well and still very functional). Measurements were
made along property boundaries or along street edges. Distances of house features such as edge
of deck or patio or a wall corner were based on my perception of when a line of sight was
perpendicular to path along which I was moving.
Of course none of this compares to survey accuracy or even work with 100 foot tape measure
and access to property. Initial work was all with boots and my visual estimates of elevation
gains. Subsequent work used the GPS for both lateral distances and elevation gains and
corroborated the earlier work surprisingly well. My GPS provides an estimate of point precision
based on location and strength of satellite signals. With optimal satellite positions and strong
signals I can occasionally achieve accuracy down to 12 feet. These measurements were done at
16 to 19 foot accuracy which is pretty good. I try to stay at 20 feet or less when measuring trails.
Absolute elevation is much worse in my experience but when only measuring small changes
such as 10 to 20 feet over short intervals of time I expect the differences to be much more
accurate than absolute elevations above some model sea level and that seemed to be the case.
Overall I would estimate accuracy at about 15%. In terms of lateral location I think one can do
better with Larimer County GIS satellite maps at high resolution.
No one challenged a somewhat bent old man walking along in a funny way (boot toe to heel)
with something in his hand (no doubt a mobile phone) in addition to a note pad and pen looking
intently at various features on their house. In general I felt reasonably safe if there was a Stop
Senseless Re-zoning sign in their yard.
Lot 1 topography. The proposed Lot 1 has a western boundary of 150 feet and an elevation rise
of 20 feet. The eastern boundary is 75 feet in length with an elevation gain of 9 feet. The
southern lot boundary lies about 15 feet from the Peak View Drive pavement edge.
In greater detail, with respect to height above Peak View Drive the southwest corner of the lot falls
on the 7850 foot contour line and the northwest corner of the lot falls on the 7870 foot contour, an
elevation rise of 20 feet (using the No. 2 Plat filed with the August 15, 2023 Planning Commission
meeting packet). Similarly, the elevation rise on the eastern boundary of Lot 1 runs from 7848 to
7857 feet for a rise of 9 feet. The boundary line at the west end of Lot 1 was estimated to be about
2 feet above the Peak View Drive grade which looks to be about what the Plat No. 2 shows. In
other words, only a very small part of Lot 2 is more than 20 feet above the Peak View grade
(estimate of about 100 square feet in extreme northwest corner).
The SW corner of Lot 1 is estimated to be 15 feet from Peak View Drive pavement edge. Since the
west boundary is 150 feet long, the midpoint is 75 feet from the SW corner and thus 90 feet from
the edge of Peak View. Consequently the 100 foot setback line intersects the west boundary 10 feet
north of the midpoint and is parallel to the south boundary and Peak View Dr. That is graphed in
the following figure which shows the pie shape section of Lot 1 which satisfies this ideal setback .
Page 89
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 22
Page 90
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 23
Appendix C. The Role of Commuter Rate in Calculating In-Commuter
Housing Need — Figure III-23 (Section III, Page 20)
The Figure provides the numbers to calculate in-commuter housing needs for the years 2015 and
2022. These housing needs are framed in terms of a parameter called the Commuter rate which is
the ratio of in-commuters to employees and the problems occur when the 2023 HNA report
writer confuses the relationship between the percentage change in housing need over these seven
years with the difference between the Commuter rate percentages for the end point years. The
report writer looks at the 91% change in housing needs (“nearly a doubling”) and the difference
of 13 percentage points in the Commuter rate over this same interval of time (29% – 16% = 13%)
and considers the latter modest compared the almost doubling which it is but errs in supposing
there is “compound effect” at work in this relationship. A careful mathematical formulation of
the relationship will show no such thing as compounding. Indeed, 13% isn’t even an appropriate
number to use for the change in Commuter rate over this interval of time.
First let me begin with a little excercise showing that the percentage difference between two
numbers can vary widely in sets of two numbers which all have the same numeric difference.
Consider the following four sets of two numbers in each of which the difference is always 13 but
the percentage differences depend significantly on the size of the numbers (the symbol means
implies; it is used here to save space rather than suggest profound logic):
Change from 1 to 14 percent change = (14 – 1)/1 = 13/1 = 13 = 1300% change
Change from 16 to 29 percent change = (29 – 16)/16 = 13/16 = 0.8125 = 81.25% change
Change from 50 to 63 percent change = (63 – 50)/50 = 13/50 = 0.2600 = 26% change
Change from 87 to 100 percent change = (100 – 87)/87 = 13/87 = 0.1494 = 14.94% change
With that out of the way we can begin serious work. First some definitions of variables which
will be used in the necessary formulas:
Next we create a number of formulas based on definitions which follow from the nature of the
variables defined above:
%
number of In-commuters
In-commuter housing need (the number of dwelling units)
number of Employees
number of Jobs
Commuter rate as a fraction
Commuter rate as a percentage
0.62 fraction of In
HN
I
I
E
J
R
R
=
=
=
=
=
=
=-commuters who want to live in the Estes Valley
1.84 number of Employees per household
1.20 number of jobs per employee
=
=
Page 91
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 24
(1)
(2)
(3)
From formulas (2) and (3) we can write
(4)
Substituting into formula (1) we obtain the fundamental working expression for IHN
(5)
where is a constant. This is an assumption, namely that the fraction of in-commuters who want
to live in the Estes Valley, the number of jobs per employee, and the number of employees per
household will remain constant over the next 7 years. The 2023 HNA indicates that this has been
the case over prior years. Nonetheless, it is an assumption. Note that IHN was defined in formula (1)
in terms of a constant factor and the number of in-commuters without any reference to the Commuter
rate R. In formula (5) we now have an expression for IHN in terms of a different constant called
and the product of the Commuter rate and number of jobs. This formula will lead to the desired
espression relating IHN and R (along with J) over the 7 years from 2015 to 2022.
We write formula (5) using the simple form twice, once for the beginning year and once for the
ending year. The variables are different for those years so we add 2015 and 2022 subscripts to
distinguish values for those two years. Thus we have two formulas:
(6)
Divide the 2022 equation by the 2015, left side divided by left side and right side divided by
right side with the 2022 variables in the numerator. The constant drops out and we have
(7)
Now I introduce an identity which is valid for any variables x1 and x2 such that one can add or
subtract the variables from one another and divide them by one another. For numbers this always
works (except for division by zero and, I suppose, in pathological cases only mathematicians can
%
0.62
1.84
1.20
and 100 100
HNI I
JE
I IRR R
E E
=
=
= = =
e j
e j
1.20
RJI RE= =
0.62
1.20 1.84
HNI R J RJ==
×e j
22 22 22
and HN2015 2015 2015 HN20 20 20
I R J I R J==
22 22 22HN20 20 20
HN2015 2015 2015
I R J
I R J
= ×
Page 92
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 25
imagine) and for variables referring to real world quantities, the measurement units must be the
same. This may seem pretty pointless but it will get us to where I want to go.
(8)
Now the fun begins. In formula (7) there are three factors of the form x2 /x1, one factor for each
of the three variables IHN, R, and J. Apply this identity to each of these factors replacing the
simple ratios with the more complicated 1+ (x2 – x1) / x1 expression on the right hand side of
formula (8):
(9)
Now carry out the indicated multiplication on the right hand side:
(10)
Next subtract 1 from each side to get rid of those terms. Then multiply the R terms by 1 in the
form 100/100 which has the effect of converting Commuter rate as a fractional rate into a
percentage rate. This is not necessary but it converts our final expression into the variables listed
in Figure III-23 which has been our goal (believe it or not).
(11a)
First of all, note that this is an exact expression for the fractional change in commuter housing
needs on the basis of the defining formulas listed at the bottom of page 23 over the 7 years of this
data and yes, there is one more manipulation I would like to make in formula (11a). We can
factor the job percent change of the two places where it occurs to give a better idea of how the
different variable contribute to the final result.
(11b)
Finally put in numbers from Figure III-23:
(12a)
(12b)
12 2 1
1 1
x x x
x x
-
= +
1 1+1+HN2022 HN2015 2022 2015 2022 2015
HN2015 2015 2015
I I R R J J
I R J
---
+=×e j e j
1 1+HN2022 HN2015 2022 2015 2022 2015 2022 2015 2022 2015
HN2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
I I R R J J R R J J
I R J R J
-----
+=++×e j e j
HN2022 HN2015 %2022 %2015 2022 2015 %2022 %2015 2022 2015
HN2015 %2015 2015 %2015 2015
I I R R J J R R J J
I R J R J
-----
=++×e j e j
1+HN2022 HN2015 %2022 %2015 2022 2015 %2022 %2015
HN2015 %2015 2015 %2015
I I R R J J R R
I R J R
----
=+×e j e j
650 340 29 16 7938 7571 29 161+
340 16 7571 16
91.18 81.25 4.847 1.8125 81.25 8.79 90.04
- - --
= +×
= + × = + =
e j e j
Page 93
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 26
Formulas (12a) and (12b) permit us to examine the different contributions to the change in the
in-commuter housing need over this stretch of 7 years. Formula (12a) allows one to confirm that
the correct numbers have been selected from Figure III-23 and formula (12b) shows the relative
contributions more clearly. As common throughout the 2023 HNA report I have converted
output from fractional to percentage change except I have preserved two more decimal points
although I am not sure they are necessarily valid. For example, only the integer Commuter rates
from the Figure have been used and the commuter housing needs have been rounded to what
looks to be values divisible by 10. Thus, even though formula (11) is an exact result, the numbers
from Figure III-23 are not uniformly accurate on either side of the equal sign.
In any event, it is easy to see that the percentage change in the Commuter rate is the dominant
term accounting for about 90% of the increase in commuter housing need in this example. My
reason for rearranging formula (11a) to (11b) is that the first term is the dominant contribution
from change in Commuter rate and the second term is change in job rate times whatever is left
over and placed in the right most large parentheses. The job factor will usually be a relatively
small change because, as in this example it starts off as a relatively large number (here it is about
4.8% which is approximately 6.0% of the 81.25% contribution from Commuter rate changes).
In any event none of this has anything to do with the “modest” 13% difference in the two
Commuter rate figures (29% and 16%).
Page 94
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 27
Appendix D. The Plan Versus the Plat
On June 26, 2023 CMS Planning & Development (CMS) submitted a revised application for
rezoning the property at 685 Peak View Drive in which the number of new 1/2 acre lots was
reduced from 4 to 3 so that there would be a total of 4 lots on the property. Three days later the
Coyote Ridge Subdivision (CRS) Plat was submitted as a supplementary part of the previous
submission. This included a professionally drawn preliminary plat of the property based on the
new 3-lot design.
The purpose of this Appendix is to call attention to the fact that these two submissions 3 days
apart fail to agree on the layout of the new lots and the service road as shown on page 28 in
which the two maps have been adjusted to a common scale and overlaid in Photoshop.
The black lines come from the CRS plat along with the light gray lines marking neighborhood lot
boundaries. The light gray new 1/2 acre lot lines along with Preliminary Concept box and Option 3
hand written box etc. derive from the CMS Plan. I have removed tree locations, some incorrect
label boxes, and the Peak View and Devon roadways from the CMS map. Also lot numbers were
moved to avoid overlapping with CRS lot numbers.
On the CRS map I removed the direction information along lot boundaries (but left lengths in
place) and the 10 foot dashed easement lines along all the new 1/2 acre lots and part way around
the interior of the entire property. All of these adjustment were made in pursuit of clarity.
Absolutely nothing was adjusted along the disagreeing new lot boundaries.
Appendix E. May 7, 2023 CMS Final Concept Plan in Context
Following up on work Larry Bader initially published in a Public Comment dated March 17, 2023
I traced over the Preliminary Concept Plan – Final submitted with the May 10, 2023 revised
application using the Paths feature in Photoshop (about which I knew nothing). Besides providing
nice straight lot boundaries and curved streets a feature available for any closed path is that the
program will count the number of enclosed pixels. Therefore I set the resolution so that 7 pixels
equaled 1 foot in the Van Horn survey provided as part of the Improvement Location Certificate
that accompanied some application packets. A 7 by 7 pixel square should then equal 1 square
foot. From a large precisely defined area my check on calibration gave 48.99 pixels per square
foot which was much better than I really expected.
This allowed me to measure the square footage of every lot (and the roadways) so I could
compare lot acreage with lots in the Prospect Mountain PUD provided on the TEP-GIS part of
the map shown on page 29. This was interesting but that application was withdrawn before I got
anything written up. While the Prospect Mountain PUD included a couple of lots slightly smaller
than the smallest CMS lot there were many more very small lots in the May 7th final plan than
there are in the Prospect Mountain PUD. And they are all very public, i.e., noticeable. I include
that map with these comments over concern about what may happen to the 5+ acres left as E-1 in
the present application.
Page 95
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 28
Page 96
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 29
Page 97
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Michael Kennedy
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: General Public Comment.
Public Comment:
My vision is an Estes Valley with a revitalized sense of community, better intergovernmental cooperation,
and respect and consideration for all residents. I hope you share that. Urgent citizen’s concerns, including
increased residential density need to be addressed by you. There are over 1,650 signatures on PEP’s
petition! I spoke in favor of Frank’s 3 house rezoning. It was a reasonable upzoning, appropriate for the
semi-rural area. But the subdivision proposal is NOT reasonable upzoning! Let’s not build more housing for
just for the sake of more housing. Let’s focus on workforce housing. If you approve this subdivision, you
make new policy, you make it without public input and are doing it piecemeal. Urbanization must grow out
from the urbanized Town, not just willy-nilly spot developments. The claim of “change in conditions” is a
sham and not indicative of a broader legal review . Due to changes to the character of their neighborhoods,
a growing number of long-term resid
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 98
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: J. Archibald
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
Totally against changing zoning for 685 Peak View- why have zoning if it can be changed so easily-
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 99
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Steve Fuhrman
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
I am opposed to this rezoning which is not consistent with the neighborhood and will not constitute
workforce housing.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 100
September 26, 2023 10:50am
Dear Mayor Koenig & Trustee;
Strongly Oppose the Rezoning & Subdivision of 685 Peak View:
I cannot believe the Town of Estes Park Planning Department staff can legally change
the definition of "Change in Conditions" using a Housing Needs Assessment..."We need
housing" (more "We Want Housing"). We have been needing housing since 1968,
nothing new here.
How can a staff member be objective when they write a song on NIMBY's and state in a
meeting that they believe the Effective Area is all of Estes Park and Estes Valley...which
would be the majority of Larimer County. That would mean to remove all Zoning codes in
Estes Park.
Every little town, municipality, city, state that is required to have a Comprehensive Plan
and Housing Needs Assessment which both are attached to Grants that dictate
conditions which becomes the wanted outcome the Governor and the current White
House Administration wants...ends up negating any zoning and Comprehensive Plans.
As this town becomes very high density, what is your plan to get the citizens and visitors
out of Estes Park within minutes (not hours) of a ravaging wind driven wildfire storm? It
took over 5 to 6 hours in Oct 2020 to get the majority of everyone out. With about only
2 ways out Hwy 34 & 36.
Superior & Louisville, CO., lost over 1000 homes in the Dec. 30st 2021 wind driven
Marshal Fire. Still today has no Comprehensive evacuation plans when roads get
congested. Valuable minutes is now unfortunately hours...It took hours not minutes, to
get those people out and some had to get out of their vehicles and run than being stuck
in traffic. In the wind driven fire in Lihanna, HI, some of those people were burned
ALIVE in their vehicles. Is this the outcome we will see in the future because of higher
density in the mountains.
How about the homes in Wildland Urban Interface aka WUI, where insurance
companies are cancelling or no longer covering policies for homes in the WUI. The
State does not provide enough coverage for homes to be replaced here in Estes Park.
Fire Mitigation (feel good policy) this only goes so far until a Wind Driven Fire comes
along, which seems to be more often than not. I agree with you Mayor Koenig and
Lancaster, It's not a matter of if, but When. Billions of dollars are being spent for fire
mitigation. but it will not stop a wind driven fire.
Community Director Garner at the time of the Planning Commission meeting did not
state or mention that 685 Peak View subject property is butted up to NW end that is
bordered by Wildfire Hazard area per the Estes Valley Wildfire Hazard Maps. Director
Page 101
Garner just stated that it was not in a Wildfire Hazard area...which is somewhat
false. We are in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). With the prevailing winds and a
fire started, there would be another major disaster like Superior CO.
Even though Frank Theis states now of only having 3 lots with a temporary turn-around
for the Emergency vehicles, he did state at our last neighborhood meeting onSeptember
that that little road in front of the 3 lots will be extended and go all the way through like
his previous plan showed when he requested for R-1.
One breath he tells the neighbors that he doesn't know what he's going to do and the
next breath he tells us the little road with the temporary turn-around will ontinue
through.
I request you deny the Rezoning Request!
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effective Area...across from 685 Peak View
Page 102
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 103
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Sandy Lindquist
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
Opposed to increasing residential density on this parcel, which is within established and developed
residential area.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 104
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: James Poppitz
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
Approving any re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive is against the Will of the People. Please pay attention to
what our Citizens want. Thank you!
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 105
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 9/26/2023
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Laura Rustin
Stance on Item: Against
Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-23 - Rezoning Request 685 Peak View Drive, Lot 1, Dannels
Addition.
Public Comment:
T
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
last letter.pdf 102.2KB
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 106
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak
View. This meeting was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once
again had failed to follow the rules about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly
stated that if another meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of
him making those exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the
developer to answer questions of adjacent property owners, the developer relied on the staff member
from the Town's Community Development Department to provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts
by the homeowners to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property
(not included in this request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share
any of that information with the property owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have
attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he
said. He says that he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current
rezoning request. As an example, at various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has
said that he might build some houses, then that he might build one house. He has stated that there
would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that, too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans
that would provide any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot
zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Page 107
9/26/2023
Town of Estes Park Organizational Chart
from Town Administrator Machalek
“CITIZENS” highlighted in red.
Town of Estes Park Organizational Chart from Town Administrator Machalekas received via email
1
2
Page 108
9/26/2023
If this were a NIMBY issue, why is there
strong opposition from High Drive to the
North End to Downtown to Carriage
Hills to Arapahoe Meadows to Citizens
from most of the 50 States who want to
Keep the PARK in Estes PARK?
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS WRONG THAT
FOLLOWING THE FUTURE ZONING FOR THE AREA IN THE
COMP PLAN MAKES THE RE-ZONE AUTOMATICALLY LEGAL.
THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THIS AREA, AND ANY
CHANGES CITED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARE
NOT IN “THE AREAS AFFECTED”.
CHANGING ZONING FOR ONE PARCEL WITHOUT
MEETING THE TERMS OF THE CODE
IS ILLEGAL “SPOT ZONING”.
THE RE-ZONING CODE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. THE CODE
EXPRESSLY STATES THAT RE-ZONING IS ONLY ALLOWED IF
THERE IS A CHANGES IN CONDITIONS IN THE AREAS
AFFECTED.
THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE IS THE
LAW, NOT THE VISIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
THE ESTES FORWARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .
3
4
Page 109
9/26/2023
5
6
Page 110
9/26/2023
THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN CONDITIONS IN THE AREAS AFFECTED THAT
WOULD JUSTIFY A RE-ZONING UNDER OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE ONLY LEGAL CASE CITED BY TOWN ATTORNEY KRAMER WAS
UNDER BOULDER’S PUD STANDARD
NOT A RE-ZONING CODE LIKE ESTES PARK’S.
“CHANGES” CITED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. ARE APPROX.
HALF A MILE AWAY, AND IN THE “OPPORTUNITY AREA”, NOT IN THE
IMMEDIATE AREA AS REQUIRED BY COURT OPINIONS.
DOES NOT MEET THE “AREAS AFFECTED” REQUIRED BY THE CODE
THE SMALLER LOTS AND PUD AROUND THE SUBJECT PARCEL WERE
THERE WHEN THE ZONING CODE WAS ADOPTED;
THEREFORE, NOT A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS.
HOUSING DEMAND EXISTED WHEN THE ZONING WAS ADOPTED.
SAME CONDITIONS WHEN E1,
OR 1 HOUSE PER ACRE WAS APPROVED.
NO CHANGES!!!
7
8
Page 111
9/26/2023
Over 375 pages of opposition
have been sent to the Town since
December, 2022
NOT including all letters to the Mayor,
to the Town Trustees and to the Town
Attorney
Plus 3 petitions for Mr. Theis’
continued non-compliance with the
EPDC and Re-zoning procedures
When have you seen over 375 pages
of opposition?
9
10
Page 112
9/26/2023
From the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_GVZeromBMEwxBc36FruvDQpD5m
SwtGf/view
11
12
Page 113
9/26/2023
13
14
Page 114
9/26/2023
SPOT ZONING IS ILLEGAL IN COLORADO
Even if a master plan is considered only an advisory document,
zoning that does not conform with the plan may be subject to
an attack as “spot zoning.”
Spot zoning is prohibited in Colorado on the theory that a local
government cannot act merely to benefit a single landowner,
but must act to benefit the general public.
If the Town Staff Report cites that the entire Town is the areas affected for this
proposed re-zoning request, why weren’t proper notices mailed, as required by the
Estes Park Development Code, to all Residents of Estes Park, the areas affected?
The fact is that the Adjacent Property Owners (APOS) are the areas affected. They
were notified, albeit not according to Code, several times.
They are the areas affected. Period. An entire Town cannot be areas affected.
_________________________________________________________________
Preserve Estes Park (PEP) has collected over 1,650 signatureson a
Petition opposingANY re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive.
1,650 is more than any of you Trustees, with the exception of the Mayor, received to
get elected.
_________________________________________________________________
A re-zoning can be considered when it meets the required standards as per the
EPDC. The first required standard requires a "...changes in conditions in the areas
affected."
Supposed changes in conditions elsewhere in Town do not provide the legal right to re-
zone an area that has not had any changes in conditions. Additionally, a demand or a
need for housing does not legally create the required changes in conditions in the areas
affected.
______________________________________________________________
“For the People, by the People, we are the People, so listen to the People.”
15
16
Page 115
9/26/2023
17
18
Page 116
9/26/2023
The Dannels Family of Estes Park
Video recording of Applicant
personally stating
NO change in conditions:
https://vimeo.com/830176680
/8801c6c291
NO CHANGES IN CONDITIONS
When asked what the required
changes in conditions in the areas
affected are for the re-zoning
request for 685 Peak View Drive,
the Applicant himself states
“…none…”
19
20
Page 117
9/26/2023
21
Page 118