The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Park Planning Commission 2025-06-17This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written comments on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/EPPCPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments will be provided to the Commission for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. __________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION – TOWN OF ESTES PARK Town Hall Board Room Tuesday, June 17, 2025 1:30 p.m. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA 1.Planning Commission minutes dated April 15, 2025 (Planning Commission meeting of May 20, 2025, was cancelled due to lack of quorum) PUBLIC COMMENT ACTION ITEMS 1.Code Amendment Vehicle-Based Accommodations Planner Hornbeck 2. Rezone 685 Peak View Dr Planner Hornbeck DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Development Code Update 2.Future Meetings ADJOURN The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. June 10, 2025 1 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 15, 2025 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting was held in said Town of Estes Park on April 15, 2025. Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick Mulhern, Chris Pawson Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Arterburn, Mulhern, Pawson, Community Development Director Steve Careccia, Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were six people in the audience. INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Mulhern) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 4-0. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 4-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: none ACTION ITEMS: 1.Election of Officers It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Pawson) to appoint Charles Cooper as Chair and David Arterburn as Vice Chair. The motion passed 4-0. 2.Rezone 685 Peak View Dr. Senior Planner Hornbeck Request to continue the item to the May 20, 2025 Planning Commission meeting It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the continuance request. The motion passed 4-0. DISCUSSION: 1.Design Workshop Consultants Development Code Update Eric Krohngold and Phillip Supino reviewed the plan and cadence of the project they have been hired to do. They asked that the Planning Commission be the driving force/steering committee for the rewrite, requesting candid, direct feedback. Summary of presentation: Process Discussion included key goals for the Code update. (see Commissioner comments below) The implementation of Housing, Natural Environment, Built Environment, and Transportation, all subjects taken from the Comprehensive Plan action statements, was also discussed. Next steps: Meet with the Board of Trustees, organize code recommendations, hold a community open house on June 25, and launch the project website. draf t 3 Commissioner Comments/Questions: Balance is key Community Member input: how and where Localize “Best Practices” Ensure transparency of changes Ensure consistency with Community Values Differentiate aspirational vs. law Wildlife buffers/migration- updated information needed Revise land use definitions that do not match the Zoning District Affordable Housing/Starter Home Zoning should be explored Rezoning requirements and density issues need to be addressed Changes in conditions need clarity Design Standards should address quality development Update drainage/landscape/lighting standards Sidewalks/Paths to nowhere do not seem practical Address building maintenance/blight/aesthetics Fire mitigation Development incentives for builders to develop what the Town wants Housing terms: workforce, affordable, attainable, need clarity Parking standards/incentives 2. Member Recruitment Director Careccia reported that the open Commissioner position is being actively recruited. He asked that current Commissioners spread the word. 3. Upcoming meetings The May 20th meeting will have three action items: VBASE update, the Stanley Park courts plan, and the Coyote Run rezone. A joint meeting with the Town Board will be scheduled for early June. There being no further business, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. _________________________________ Chuck Cooper, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary draf t 4 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 20, 2025 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting was held in said Town of Estes Park on May 20, 2025. Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick Mulhern, Chris Pawson Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Arterburn, Mulhern, Pawson, Community Development Director Steve Careccia, Planner Kara Washam, Town Board Liaison Frank Lancaster, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: Mulhern, Pawson Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were three people in the audience. INTRODUCTIONS There was no quorum; therefore, no official meeting was held. AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL PUBLIC COMMENT: CONTINUED ITEMS: 1.Rezone 685 Peak View Dr. Request to continue the item to the June 17, 2025, Planning Commission meeting ACTION ITEMS: 1.Code Amendment Vehicle-Based Accommodations Planner II, Washam A request to consider an amendment of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) to remove the requirement for electric and water availability for the Vehicle-Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) program DISCUSSION: 1.Community Conversations Eric White, Adult Services Director Estes Valley Library. Eric shared a slide show explaining Community Conversations and how it will benefit the Development Code update. The main goal is to give people from across the community a voice and inform decision-making. There being no further business, Chair Cooper adjourned the meeting at 1:50 p.m. _________________________________ Chuck Cooper, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary For i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y 5 6 Community Development Memo To: Chair Cooper Estes Park Planning Commission Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From:Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Date:June 17, 2025 RE:Code Text Amendment of Section 5.3 of the Estes Park Development Code Regarding Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider an amendment of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) to extend the one-year pilot program and to amend the access requirements for electric and water connections for the Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) program, in order to allow qualified individuals to use an RV or similar vehicle as a temporary dwelling unit on private commercial property pursuant to § 5.3.D.7. of the EPDC. Present Situation: In recent years, housing related costs have escalated in the Town of Estes Park and rental shortages have increased, as evidenced by the 2023 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan. As a result, Planning staff met with other Town departments and external agencies in April 2023 to discuss a pilot program to allow vehicle-based accommodations for seasonal employees, ask questions, and gather feedback. Attendees included staff from the Building Division, Public Works, Parking/Transit, Utilities, Police Department, both Sanitation Districts, Estes Valley Fire Protection District, Estes Park Economic Development Corporation, and Estes Chamber of Commerce. Most attendees were in favor of developing and implementing a pilot program. Town Board Study Sessions were held in May 2023 to discuss the concept at a high level and February 2024 to review a first draft of regulations prepared by staff. A public hearing was held on April 9, 2024 before the Town Board of Trustees to consider 7 Ordinance 06-24 (Attachment 2). The Board voted to approve the ordinance, amending the EPDC to allow VBASE. The VBASE pilot program season opened on May 1, 2024, and closed on October 31, 2024. No applications were submitted in 2024 but staff received a few inquiries. A survey was sent out and one response was received. Regulations, including the requirement for “full hookups” was cited as a reason to not pursue the VBASE program. On April 8, 2025, the Board voted to approve Ordinance 04-25 (Attachment 3) to extend the pilot program for another year, to be automatically repealed effective April 30, 2026. The Board directed Staff to consider removing the requirement for water and electric connections for eligible vehicles in the pilot program. This suggestion stemmed from the increase of self-contained vehicles and a concern that the connection requirements contributed to a low number of applications in the program's first year. Proposal: Staff requests approval of the amendment to extend the VBASE pilot for an additional year by amending the automatic repeal date to October 31, 2026 and to amend the access requirements for electric and water for qualified occupants of the Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) program, pursuant to § 5.3.D.7. of the EPDC. Advantages: Self-contained recreational vehicles could qualify for the VBASE program if the requirement for electric and water connections is amended. Removing some of the more restrictive requirements could lead to a higher number of program applicants. Removing these requirements is expected to have a relatively low impact on Town infrastructure, utilities, and other services. Extending the VBASE program through October 31, 2026 will allow the program to continue for a full season without interruption and without the need for an ordinance to amend the repeal date. Disadvantages: Removing the requirement for electric connection on-site may result in increased usage of generators, which the VBASE program prohibits. Level of Public Interest Low Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval of the Code Text Amendment of § 5.3.D.7. of the Estes Park Development Code subject to the following findings of fact: 1. The Estes Park Planning Commission is the Recommending Body for the Code Text Amendment. 8 2. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees is the Decision-Making Body for the Code Text Amendment. Sample Motions for the Code Text Amendment: 1. I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Board of Trustees of the Code Text Amendment of § 5.3.D.7., to extend the one-year pilot program and to amend the access requirements for electric and water connections for the Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) program, in accordance with the findings of fact outlined in the staff report. 2. I move to continue the Code Text Amendment application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Board of Trustees of the Code Text Amendment application, finding that … [state reasons for recommendation of denial]. Attachments 1. Proposed Code Amendment to 5.3.D.7. 2. Ordinance 06-24 3. Ordinance 04-25 9 § 5.3 TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES … D. Temporary Uses Allowed. … 7. Vehicle-Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE). … c. Eligibility for Temporary Permit. … (7) Electric. The qualified occupant must have a supply of electricity from a source on the same parcel. access to electricity by either of the following: (a) Power storage from a battery source, solar panel source, or a combination of self- contained sources (e.g. 12-volt DC power). (b) From an electricity source on the same parcel (e.g. 120-volt AC power). The use of a generator is not allowed at any time. No air-conditioning or any other mechanized unit to cool air in a VBASE unit may operate after the hours of 8:00 p.m. or before 8:00 a.m. (8) Water. The qualified occupant must have access to potable drinking water by either of the following: (a) A food grade storage tank for potable drinking water; or (b) aA food grade hose or other means of delivery from a structure located on the same parcel with an approved Town water tap or permitted well. … e. Repeal. This paragraph (7) on vehicle-based accommodations for seasonal employees shall automatically be repealed effective April 30, 2026 October 31, 2026. No temporary use permits for VBASE units shall be issued which would authorize any such use to occur after that date. The Board of Trustees may alter this repeal by ordinance. (Ord. 06-24, §2; Ord. 04-25, §2) 10 ORDINANCE NO. 06-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.3 OF THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING VEHICLE BASED ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, housing related costs in the Town of Estes Park have escalated rapidly in recent years, as evidenced by median home sales prices rising from $392,000 in March 2020 to $585,000 in September 2022—a 50% increase in two and a half years: WHEREAS, affordability has declined in the rental market as rent hikes outpaced income growth and levels of cost burden for renters rose from 41% in 2010 to 63% in 2020 in Estes Park according to the 2023 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan (Assessment); WHEREAS, the rental vacancy rate in Estes Park is currently approaching zero while a balanced rental market typically has vacancy rates of 5-10%. There is a need for approximately 132 units to accommodate seasonal workforce according to the Assessment; WHEREAS, Estes Park relies on a tourism -based economy that is seasonal in nature with approximately 5,250 summer seasonal jobs compared to approximately 4,860 year-round jobs according to the Assessment; WHEREAS, with little available work force housing, businesses face difficulty hiring adequate staff to deliver services. In 2021 there were 740 unfilled jobs in the Estes Valley, a 30% increase since 2015 according to the Assessment; WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to pass this ordinance to allow a one- year pilot program to permit Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees on private property in limited situations as defined herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: In this ordinance, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads. Section 2: Section 5.3(D) of the Estes Park Development Code is hereby amended by the addition of underlined material, to read as follows: 5.3 — TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES D. Temporary Uses Allowed. 7. Vehicle -Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) a. Definitions. For the purposes of this paragraph (7), the following terms have the following meanings: 1) Affiliate means a person (e.g.. firm, company, entity, natural person) who directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with. the specific person, as determined explicitly in a temporary use permit. "Control", including the terms controlling", "controlled by", and "under common control with", means the possession, direct or indirect, of the majority power to direct or cause the 11 direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract other than commercial contract for goods or non -management services, or otherwise. 2) Qualified Occupant means any person who resides in a VBASE unit and is employed as an employee or independent contractor for more than 30 hours per week, on the same site as the property where a VBASE unit is located, or on another site owned either by the person who owns the property where the VBASE unit is located or by an affiliate of the owner. 3) Vehicle -Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) Unit means a vehicular or portable unit designed to be mounted on a chassis and wheels, which either has its own motive power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle, such as travel trailers, fifth wheel trailers, camping trailers, motor homes, or slide in truck campers which may be used as a temporary dwelling or sleeping place for Qualified Occupants. The following do not qualify as VBASE Units: tiny homes, passenger vehicles, and truck toppers. b. Permit Required; Term; Fees. 1) Any owner may, upon receipt of a temporary use permit for such purpose, enter into a private agreement with any Qualified Occupant to allow VBASE parking on the owner's private property for use as a temporary dwelling or sleeping quarters. 2) This VBASE permit shall issue and automatically renew monthly until such time as owner terminates the permit in writing or on the following November 1, whichever comes first. 3) The permit application fee shall be $50. 00. 4) The monthly permit fee shall be $100.00 paid to the Town without proration. The fee is for each calendar month. The permit fee is owed by each permittee whether a permitted spot is in use or not. and fees will not be reduced on a pro rata basis. For continuing permits, the permit fee is due and payable on the last business day of the prior month. 5) The Town may accept advance payment of the monthly permit fees. but acceptance of such payment does not change the month -to -month permit status. The Town will not provide refunds on any advance payments. 6) This permit does not allow any material change to the interior or exterior of any premises to accommodate the VBASE unit that would require a building permit. c. Eligibility For Temporary Permit. 1) Permit Required. An owner shall submit a completed permit application to the Town along with payment of the permit application fee. The permit application shall include a drawing showing the proposed location of the VBASE Unit on the site to demonstrate conformance with all applicable regulations. 2) On -Site Employment Required. The Qualified Occupant must either be employed on the same site as the owner's property or on another site owned by the owner or the owner's affiliate. 3) Location. The VBASE Unit must be placed entirely on private property and meet all setback requirements of the zoning district or any setback established by an approved variance. The VBASE Unit shall not be located in any of the following places: a) Within the extended boundaries of a crosswalk: b) Within ten (10) feet of the extension of any primary building entranceway, and or doorway; c) In a location in which it may impede or interfere with or visually obstruct: i. The safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic., ii. Parking lot circulation; iii. Required parking spaces; iv. Access to any public street, alley or sidewalk; or v. Fire lanes 4) Zoning and Land Use. The VBASE Unit is only permitted to be located on properties zoned Accommodations (A and A-1), Commercial (CD, CO, CH, or O), or Industrial (1-1). A VBASE Unit shall not be permitted on properties zoned 12 Residential (R, RM, E, or E-1) or on properties on which the principal use is residential. regardless of zoning. 5) Season. The VBASE Unit is only permitted to be occupied from May 1 to October 31. The VBASE Unit may be parked and/or stored on -site outside these dates in accordance with all requirements of the Municipal Code and Development Code. 6) Surface. The location of the VBASE Unit on the owner's private property must be on a rigid surface consisting of concrete, asphalt, chip seal, or pavers. A gravel surface is also acceptable provided it is designated and reserved for parking, but in no case shall a VBASE Unit be placed upon any dirt, grass, landscaping, or other permeable surface. 7) Electric. The Qualified Occupant must have a supply of electricity from a source on the same parcel. The use of a generator is not allowed at any time. No air-conditioning or any other mechanized unit to cool air in a VBASE Unit may operate after the hours of 8:00 p.m. or before 8:00 a.m. 8) Water. The Qualified Occupant must have access to potable drinking water by a food grade hose or other means of delivery from a structure located on the same parcel with an approved Town water tap or permitted well. 9) Hoses and cords. Hoses and cords which cross real property lines or public property are prohibited. All hoses/cords need to be securely placed and covered as needed, to avoid being a trip hazard. 10)Restroom. If the VBASE Unit does not contain restroom facilities, the owner shall make restroom facilities available to the Qualified Occupant 24 hours per day. Portable restroom facilities are not permitted. 11)Sewer. No sewer hook-up for a vehicle is required: however, any black water holding tank in use must be regularly dumped at a permitted RV dump station. The owner is responsible for the appropriate management of a black water system if used on the property. 12)Dumpinq of Black or Grey Water. In no case shall black or grey water tanks be dumped into any sewer system located on the premises unless an approved RV sewer connection is available. 13)State of Good Repair. The VBASE Unit must be maintained in a state of good repair and be equipped and licensed for travel on public roads. 14)Life Safety. The VBASE Unit must be equipped with an operable fire extinguisher, smoke detector, and carbon monoxide detector. 15)Number of VBASE Units. No more than one VBASE Unit per parcel shall be permitted. 16)Maximum Occupancy. No more than three adults over the age of 18 and no more than six people total may dwell or sleep in any VBASE Unit. 17)Term of Tenancy. The term of the tenancy between the owner and the Qualified Occupant shall end on the last day of each month at 11:59 p.m. This rental term shall be contained in a written agreement signed by the owner and the Occupant with a copy provided to Town Staff prior to approval of the permit. 18)Display of Permit. The Permit shall be affixed to the VBASE Unit so it is visible. 19)Inspection. The owner and Qualified Occupant shall grant permission to Town staff to enter the property as an invitee to inspect the VBASE Unit for permit compliance or to respond to complaints. 20)Other Requirements. The permitted VBASE Unit shall comply with all other restrictions and requirements imposed by local, state, or federal laws. 21)Other Structures. Except for the VBASE Unit, no permanent or temporary structures, including but not limited to decks and shade structures, shall be erected in connection with this Permit. 22)Insurance. Property owner must file with the Town a certificate evidencing valid and effective policies for real and personal property liability insurance at least to the limits required with minimum limits of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500. 000.00) per occurrence, One Million Dollars ($1,000, 000.00) in the aggregate. 23)Signage. No temporary or permanent signage is permitted in conjunction with this permit. 24)Businesses Prohibited. No business may be operated out of a VBASE Unit. 13 c.Factors For Grant Of Temporary Permit. Notemporary use permit for aVBASE unit shall be granted unless the Town finds that the following criteria have been met: 1) Compliance with all eligibility requirements contained herein. 2) No current nuisance or other oontinuinq code violation as set forth under the Municipal Code exists on the naa| property where the VBASE Unit will he located. 3) The V8ASE Unit location does not significantly adversely impact the surrounding area. 4) The real property parcel complies with all applicable Town zoninq, development code, and buildinq requlations and there no open or continuing code violations. 5) The issuance of the permit balances the safety of patrons, pedestrians, and traffic such that no group shall be subject to an unreasonable risk of harm if the permit ioqranhed. d. Repeal. This paragraph (7) on vehicle -based accommodations for ooaoonm| employees shall automatically berepealed effective April 3O.2O25. Notemporary use permits for VBASE units shall be issued which would authorize any such use to occur after that date. The Board ofTrustees may alter this repeal bvordinance. Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board ofTrustees of the Town of EstesPark, Colorado this 0TH day ofAPR| L. 2024. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: rown Clerk u hereby certify that the above Ondi ma wais introduced at a regularmeeting ofthe Board ofTrustees ontho q4`^ day of 2024 and published by htJe in a newopaperofgonens|oimu|ationintheTownofEatmaPurk.Co|omdo.onthe\Vdayof 2024. all an required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 14 ORDINANCE NO. 04-25 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.3 OF THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING VEHICLE BASED ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, housing related costs in the Town of Estes Park have escalated rapidly in recent years, as evidenced by median home sales prices rising from $392,000 in March 2020 to $585,000 in September 2022—a 50% increase in two and a half years; and WHEREAS, affordability has declined in the rental market as rent hikes outpaced income growth and levels of cost burden for renters rose from 41% in 2010 to 63% in 2020 in Estes Park according to the 2023 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan (Assessment); and WHEREAS, the rental vacancy rate in Estes Park is currently approaching zero while a balanced rental market typically has vacancy rates of 5-10%. There is a need for approximately 132 units to accommodate seasonal workforce according to the Assessment; and WHEREAS, Estes Park relies on a tourism-based economy that is seasonal in nature with approximately 5,250 summer seasonal jobs compared to approximately 4,860 year-round jobs according to the Assessment; and WHEREAS, with little available workforce housing, businesses face difficulty hiring adequate staff to deliver services. In 2021 there were 740 unfilled jobs in the Estes Valley, a 30% increase since 2015 according to the Assessment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees approved Ordinance 06-24 on the 9th day of April, 2024 to amend the Estes Park Development Code to allow a one-year pilot program to permit Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) on private property in limited situations as defined in Section 5.3(D) of the Estes Park Development Code;and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to extend the one-year pilot program for an additional year to permit Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees on private property in limited situations as defined herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: in this ordinance, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads. Section 2: Section 5.3(D) of the Estes Park Development Code is hereby amended by the addition of underlined material and the removal of stricken material, to read as follows: 5.3 - TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES D. Temporary Uses Allowed. 7. Vehicle-Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE). 15 e. Repeal. This paragraph (7) on vehicle-based accommodations for seasonal employees shall automatically be repealed effective April 30, 20265. No temporary use permits forVBASE units shall be issued which would authorize any such use to occur after that date. The Board of Trustees may alter this repeal by ordinance. Section 3: Any applications forVBASE units received between April 30, 2025 and the effective date of this Ordinance shall be considered submitted upon the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this ^-^ day of p^pe-ii , 2025. TOWN OF ESTES^ARK, C(^ORADO Mayor ATTEST: T(^ Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the '8-^ day of P><?<^(-^ , 2025 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _^>sday Of_PiPC-AL/ _, 2025, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney 16 17 To: Chair Cooper Planning Commission Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single-Family Residential), Frank Theis, CMS Planning and Development, Inc., (Owner/Applicant)/ David Emerson, Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley (Applicant) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single-Family Residential), review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), and forward a recommendation to Town Board. Present Situation: 685 Peak View Drive is a 4.46 acre site currently zoned E-1 (Estate), containing a single residence built in 1965. The site is moderately sloped, with average grades appearing to be approximately 10%. The site is located outside all mapped hazard areas (flood, fire, and geologic). The site is located within an important wildlife habitat area per the 1996 Comprehensive Plan wildlife map. The Plan mapped the site within a high use area for deer. The site is just outside an area mapped as a high use area for elk. The property was first annexed to the Town of Estes Park as part of the Dannels Addition in 1954. Zoning was established on the property in 1955 through Ordinance 152 which zoned all property in the Dannels Addition as R-1 Residential, which allowed one-family and two-family dwellings and required a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet per single family dwelling. In 1972 the R-1 zone district was either renamed or replaced with the R-S zone district and increased the minimum lot size to 18,000 square feet. Like many properties in Estes Park, the subject property was down-zoned in the 18 Town-wide rezoning in 2000 to a less intense zoning of E-1 (Estate), which has a one acre (43,560 square feet) minimum lot size. There has been considerable recent history regarding development applications for this property. In 2023 an application was submitted to rezone the subject property and adjoining three acres from E-1 (one unit/acre) to R-1 (eight units/acre) along with a concept for 30 single family lots. The applicant subsequently withdrew that application and submitted a request to rezone the western 1.8-acre portion of the previous lot from E-1 to E (two units/acre) with a concept to develop three ½ acre lots on that portion of the property. Town Board denied that rezoning request in September 2023. The applicant subsequently submitted a subdivision application to create three one-acre lots on the western portion of the property and the remaining 4.47-acre lot subject to this rezoning request. This application was approved in January 2024. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map The surrounding land use, zoning, and Future Land Use designations are depicted in Table 1 below. Peak View Dr Subject Property 19 Figure 2 - Zoning Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary OMPREHENSIVE LAN UTURE AND USE DESIGNATION ONING SES UBJECT Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential Suburban Estate EV E-1 (Estate) (County) Single-Family Residential OUTH Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential AST Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential Neighborhood Village E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential Proposal: The applicants request to rezone the subject parcel from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single- Family Residential). A conceptual subdivision plan (Attachment 4) depicts twelve residential lots ranging in size from approximately 9,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet and an open space tract of 30,000 square feet. Access is shown to eleven of the lots from a new cul-de-sac that would align with Twin Drive. Access to the other lot would be via the private driveway to the west. (County) 20 Advantages: The application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance with Section 3.3.D “Standards for Review” of the EPDC, all applications for rezoning shall be reviewed for compliance with the following standards and criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Discussion: New Comprehensive Plan Current zoning of the property was established in 2000, which can be used as an informal benchmark for evaluating changes in conditions. Since 2000, a new comprehensive plan has been adopted with a different development pattern envisioned for the subject property. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan designated the future land use on the subject property as Estate, which was envisioned to allow for single-family residential development on minimum 1-acre lots. In 2022, a new comprehensive plan was adopted, changing the future land use designation to suburban estate, which envisions “medium-sized single- family homes on lots that are at least a quarter-acre in size.” As discussed in the Plan, the future land use map is a guide for decision-makers and serves as a framework for desired character of an area. A change in future land use designation from one acre lot size to ¼ acre lot size fulfills the requirement for a change in conditions to the areas affected. 21 Figure 3 - 1996 Future Land Use Map 22 Figure 4 - 2022 Future Land Use Map 23 Housing Needs The challenges associated with housing in Estes Park go back decades and are well documented in the 2023 Housing Needs Assessment. However, housing has become significantly less affordable since the current zoning was established on the subject property in 2000. Since 2000, median sales prices of houses in Estes Park have grown from approximately $190,000 1 to $692,000 2 in 2024. That represents a 264% increase in 24 years or an annualized increase of 11%. Even more pronounced, there was a 50% escalation in home values during the two-and-a-half-year period from March 2020 to September 2022 3. Median household income in Larimer County has increased at a much slower pace, from $49,758 to $88,519, or a 78% increase, from 2000 to 20234. Renters are especially challenged to find attainable housing. In 2010 41% of renters were cost burdened, which rose to 63% in 2020 5 (data from 2000 was not available). Households paying more than 30% of their gross income toward housing costs are considered cost burdened. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected, as outlined above. 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. Staff Discussion: Staff has waived the requirement for a Development Plan with the rezoning in-lieu of a conceptual subdivision plan since a Development Plan is not required with single-family residential development and a Subdivision Plat will be required. This requirement is waived per Section 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Park Development Code: “All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one (1) zone district to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the permitted uses in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan. Staff may waive this requirement if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts, or other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver.” Staff recommends as a condition of rezoning approval that subsequent subdivision plat applications are in general conformance with the conceptual 1 Root Policy Research. Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan, 2023. 2 Realtor.com 3 Root Policy Research. Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan, 2023. 4 U.S. Census Bureau 5 Ibid 24 subdivision plan to ensure consistency between applications. There has been precedent in recent years with rezoning applications in Estes Park being processed and approved by the Town Board of Trustees that were not accompanied by a Development Plan, including 507 Grand Estates Drive, Lot 2 of Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, and The Town-owned “Fish Hatchery” project. While the Development Plan requirement has been waived, the rezoning and conceptual subdivision plan are reviewed below for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has nine guiding principles for the Estes Valley. Relevant principles include: • Balanced and managed growth that enhances quality of life, preserves local character, conserves natural resources and wildlife habitat. • Housing opportunities sufficient to support a multigenerational, year-round community. Relevant Goals from the Comprehensive Plan are listed below, followed by staff analysis: Staff Analysis: Scenic character will be protected as required by Development Code standards, such as open space requirements (15% of gross land area), landscaping requirements, and dark sky lighting standards. Impact on viewsheds will be minimized by adhering to maximum building height limits (30 feet). Staff Analysis: Impacts to wildlife will be managed by Development Code limitations on fencing and non-native landscaping. The Development Code limits fencing in the subject area to a maximum of 40 inches in height, or if over 40 inches, gaps a minimum of six feet wide spaced a maximum of 50 feet apart. 25 Staff Analysis: The Future Land Use Map is a tool to strategically direct growth towards areas of existing infrastructure. Rezoning the property in accordance with the Map’s designation of Suburban Estate is way of implementing this goal. The site is well served by existing municipal-level infrastructure, including water, sewer, and electric utilities. Minimal utility extensions will be required to serve the site and will be the sole responsibility of the applicant. The site allows for efficient delivery of public services, such as road maintenance and public safety services already provided in the area. Staff Analysis: New housing, no matter the density, will always involve some disturbance to the natural environment. The site does not contain sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, riparian areas, steep slopes, or habitat of threatened or endangered species. Staff Analysis: A balanced mix of uses includes a range of housing types, lots sizes, and price points, as proposed here. The application would support an underserved residential use that would meet the diverse needs of residents (attainable housing) and businesses and visitors (provision of housing for the workforce). The application materials indicate eight of the proposed lots will be sold to Habitat for Humanity of the St Vrain Valley and subject to a deed restriction limits home future buyers’ income to a maximum of 80% to 115% of the area median income. This is more restrictive than what the Development Code defines as attainable housing (150% of area median income). The applicant is not seeking a density bonus offered by the Development Code for attainable or workforce housing. 26 Staff Analysis: Increasing the housing supply, especially deed-restricted attainable units, will help meet the needs of the workforce. Staff Analysis: The proposed rezoning will create new housing opportunities by allowing development of eight attainable housing units and four market rate units. Beyond the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed development would be compatible and consistent with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. The Development Code defines compatible as: Compatible or Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. Existing growth and development patterns in the surrounding area are predominately single-family residential, with densities ranging from 0.7 dwelling units per acre to 2.4 units per acre, as depicted in Figure 5. The proposed zoning allows a density of up to 4 units per acre, although the conceptual plat depicts a density of 2.7 units per acre. This is compatible and consistent with the surrounding area. The height, scale, mass and bulk of structures will be in character with the existing area by following the R zone district development code standards, such as the 30-foot maximum building height and setbacks of 15 feet from front and rear lot lines and ten feet from side lot lines. Similarly, landscaping, lighting, noise, and architecture of new development is expected to be compatible and consistent with the existing area. 27 Vehicular traffic will be in character with existing conditions in the neighborhood. The nearest traffic counts available are from Larimer County on Peak View Drive just east of Marys Lake Road. Annual daily average traffic counts there are reported as 1600 vehicles. The expected trip generation with the proposed 12 single family homes is 144 vehicles per day. If 50% of those trips travel to/from Marys Lake Road, that would represent an increase of 4.5% on Peak View Drive at the Marys Lake Road intersection. The traffic memo provided by the applicant’s traffic engineer concludes no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated, including the statement that the impact on peak hour operation at the key nearby intersections will not be significant. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, as well as existing growth and development patterns nearby and throughout the area. Figure 5 - Surrounding Density (dwelling units/acre) Prospect Mountain 2.4 du/ac Koral Heights 0.9 du/ac Devon Hills Estates Property 28 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: No comments from service or utility providers expressed opposition to the rezoning or an inability to provide adequate services and facilities. Disadvantages: As outlined below, numerous public comments have been received expressing opposition to the rezoning. Comments include arguments that there has not been a change in conditions, concern for increased traffic and congestion, impacts on environment, and other items. However, staff’s analysis is that the proposal meets the applicable review criteria of EPDC Section 3.3. Level of Public Interest: There is a high level of public interest in this application. A neighborhood and community meeting regarding the rezoning project was held on January 11, 2025. A summary of the meeting is enclosed. In accordance with the notice requirements in the EPDC, notice of this Planning Commission hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, on May 30th, 2025. Notice was mailed to all required adjacent property owners on May 1, 2025. A sign was posted on the property by the applicant. Extensive public comments have been received on this request and can be viewed at estes.org/currentapplications. As of this writing, 33 letters of opposition have been received from 18 individuals. Comments are summarized as follows: Change in Conditions Multiple commenters state that the neighborhood remains unchanged since the last rezoning application was denied in 2023. However, the question at hand, in staff’s view, is if there has been a change in conditions since the property’s zoning was established in 2000, including changes in adopted plans and policies and not just physical changes. Neighborhood Character & Density Many commentors see the proposed development as incompatible with the existing character of the area, citing the difference in lot sizes proposed to what exists in the area. Environmental and Wildlife Concerns Several comments raise concerns about the environmental impact, particularly regarding drainage, wildlife, and wildfire risk. Drainage will be reviewed in detail should the project proceed to subdivision platting. As an area within an important habitat area (high use area for deer), EPDC restrictions on fencing and non-native landscaping will 29 apply to any future subdivision and development. The area is not mapped within a high fire danger, but is subject to wildfire risk like all areas of the Estes Valley. Traffic Some commentors believe traffic associated with development will lead to dangerous conditions and congestion. As stated above, the traffic memo indicates no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated. Spot Zoning Some commentors believe the request would be an illegal spot zoning. However, case law indicates rezoning in conformance with adopted land use policies, such as the Comprehensive Plan, is not spot zoning. Housing Affordability Some residents argue the proposed homes would not be genuinely affordable and that the affordability crisis is being used as a pretext for development. The applicant has volunteered to record deed restrictions on eight of the properties to preserve the lots as attainable in the 80-115% maximum AMI range. Staff recommends a condition of rezoning approval that subsequent subdivision applications include recording of these deed restrictions. Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment subject to the following condition(s): 1. Future subdivision shall include a minimum of eight lots that shall be deed restricted as “attainable” to households earning a maximum of 115% of the Larimer County Area Median Income and in accordance with the requirements of Development Code Section 11.4. 2. All subsequent subdivision applications shall be in general conformance with the conceptual subdivision plan depicted in Attachment 4, including access, open space, and lot size and layout, unless otherwise expressly approved by the Board of Trustees. Sample Motions for the Zoning Map Amendment: 1. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval. 2. I move to continue the application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to deny the rezoning application, finding that … [state reasons for denial]. Attachments: 1. Application 30 2.Statement of Intent 3.Conceptual Subdivision Plan 4.Traffic Study 5.Neighborhood Meeting Summary 31 32 33 34 STATEMENT OF INTENT Rezoning Proposal Phase 2 of Coyote Ridge Subdivision in Estes Park, Colorado CMS Planning & Development, Inc. – Applicant Habitat For Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley - Applicant 1/28/25 The subject property is 4.47 acres located at 685 Peak View Drive, on the north side of Peak View Drive and approximately 1/3 mile west of South Saint Vrain (Highway 7) in Estes Park, Colorado. It is zoned E-1, which allows 1-acre minimum single-family residential lots. The Applicants are proposing to rezone the property to R, which allows for ¼-acre minimum lot size. A Concept Plan of a twelve lot subdivision is included with this rezoning application. The Applicants are willing to have the Concept Plan be a condition of a rezoning approval. Eight of the twelve lots shown on the Concept Plan are under contract to be purchased by Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley. Access Eleven of the new single-family lots access onto a cul-de-sac in a 45-foot-wide right-of-way, including curb & gutter and sidewalk on the on the south side of the street. This new public street provides access onto Peak View Drive across from Twin Drive. The twelfth lot will have access onto the private drive in Phase One. Stormwater Drainage The entire property will drain to a new detention basin in the 2/3-acre open space lot. Utilities Underground electric and water mains will be extended to the new subdivision from locations on the west side of the subject property. One new fire hydrant will be installed in the center of the property. A sewer main will extend from the west along the south side of the new street. Both water and sewer mains will extend off site under Peak View Drive and down Twin Drive to existing mains. Phasing Schedule The construction of infrastructure for the subdivision will begin immediately upon Final Plat filing. The first house will begin construction as soon as a permit can be obtained. Statistical Information Lot Sizes: Lots 1-3 and 7-12 9,200+ sf Lots 4-6 18,000-18,200 sf Open Space Lot 29,403+ sf (15% of Parcel) Street Length 160+ lf Street Lights None (Lights already exist at both Peak View Intersections) 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Coyote Run Neighborhood meeting January 11, 2025 Estes Park Library Frank Theis, property owner and developer of proposed project, introduced himself and outlined the purpose of the meeting. He then introduced the Co-Applicant, David Emerson, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and Paul Hornbeck, senior planner in Estes Park. David Emerson then made the following presentation x Objective – give Habitat’s perspective acknowledging the opposition o Presented information about Habitat including the following topics: §Habitat’s history in the community building homes and arranging a!ordable mortgage ﬁnancing including a very high success rate with homeowners paying their mortgages (zero foreclosures in 36 years) §The industries in which are people work (#1 Healthcare, #2 Education) and how they are selected. §The role we play not just to set the price of the home but to arrange ﬁnancing as a certiﬁed USDA mortgage lender. §The impact to Habitat’s homeowners over the years §The types of homes we build o Presented information about the concept plan and why Habitat believes they can ensure a!ordability x Habitat- focused on land development but also like to rehab when possible. x We are focused on the 8 households that would need a homeownership opportunity x What we would be buying is builder ready lots, lots that would be ready to build on. Often we are doing the land development, Habitat’s current project at Raven was under contract since 2011 and is just now being built. Builder ready lots allows Habitatto avoid to the risk and expense of entitlement and infrastructure. The purchase price for these lots are at an a!ordable price, and the concept is supported by the comprehensive plan. Habitat will make sure it is a!ordable . Habitat would like to make the rezoning approval conditional on the 8 lots being designated attainable housing. Habitat reported that a master deed restriction can make it attainable and they sited two past rezoning requests that had conditions set upon them. One was Raven where an attainable master deed restriction had to be approved and another was in Lyons where a rezoning was granted as part of a Development Agreement that spelled out a variety of conditions related to a!ordability and preference for those residing in Lyons. This was in response to the 2013 ﬂoods. Habitat gave an overview of agreement with CMS Planning & Development as follows: x CMS sells 8 lots in a size materially consistent with the concept plan x CMS bears risk and cost of pursuing a rezoning, replat and installing infrastructure to create 8 builder ready lots 45 xCMS agrees to attain habitat’s approval before each submission and to pursue an R designated rezoning supported by the Estes Forward Comprehensive plan xCMS and habitat agree to pursue a conditional rezoning predicated on eight lots being designated attainable xCMS will provide 0% interest ﬁnancing at closing so Habitat’s desired out of pocket expenses are minimized until 7/1/2026 (1/2 sales price) and 7/1/2028 (remainder) xPurchase price is lower of appraisal or $125K/lot. Habitat believes this to be below market value to secure builder ready lots without expense 2-3 years in the future. Habitat then showed a concept plan and the development team took questions. Questions & Answers Q: Who is on the application? Is it just CMS or both CMS and Habitat? Paul Hornbeck reported that a neighborhood meeting is required before an application and therefore since there is no application it is not clear who the applicant is. However, as it states on the notice letter, CMS and Habitat are representing themselves as both applicants. Q: What di!erence will Habitat make on being the applicant? David Emerson- Habitat believes in rezoning, we need to ask for rezoning in order to do the work we do. By being involved in this transaction with a binding agreement Habitat can maximize the probability that the lots will be developed a!ordably. We can also work to ask for a conditional approval of the rezoning that designates the lots as attainable. Frank- This request is di!erent than the prior request as they are quarter acre lots instead of 1/8 acre lots. . All other lots (3) will also have deed restrictions for work force as he has seen people in this community who are unable to live here and would like those lots to help with that. Question and Comment was made – Individual provides a!ordable rental on his properties. In the past he would get 20-30 people wanting to rent when he advertised an opening, but now on his current listing has had only 2 people. He feels like there are a lot of unsold units and does not have the need anymore. Scott Moulton- ED EP housing authority o!ered his opinion. He began by asking the rate the gentleman is charging and he stated $2500 for a 3 beds/ 2 bath house Scott stated that Estes Valley has had a unhealthy rental and homeownership market in the past. While we increased the stock of rentals the rental for those homes (market rate) has not brought the prices down although the increase in supply has started to bring a healthier balance. He believes $2500 for a 3 bedroom is still a little high for most even though it is probably market. He sees a signiﬁcant demand for homeownership with an a!ordable rate, Habitat does this very well, and the housing authority is having a hard time providing ownership opportunities. The Housing Authority is seeing 3-4 bedroom units renting well, but in the next many months and years they want to try to create a spectrum of housing solutions (both rental and homeownership) Q: What do people do about the rising costs of insurance? David explained that Habitat’s program ensures a!ordability at sale by setting the price (as builder) and arranging the ﬁnancing (as a USDA Mortgage Lender). He explained that Habitat will take the taxes, insurance and HOA amounts and 46 Response from Frank- 1500 SQ feet, 2 car garages, not terrible di!erent from the neighbors, di!erent styles, and our agreement is to make sure they all have di!erent front elevations so it does not look cookie cutter, Comment: An individual stated she represented the Estes Valley Residents Group and read a statement opposed to the change. Comment: If we do this in this zone – what is to keep others from doing the same? This takes away property rights from others in town. Comment: The purpose of the meeting is to get informed- get us on board or oppose, correct? I support the argument against rezoning, not that I don’t trust Habitat, I don’t trust Frank, I wouldn’t vote for this, Comment: Given the public the basics of the contract, concerned with the 3 other lots and they could go down even more Q: What happens to the wildlife? Comment: Concern for the perpetual state of construction- trucks, etc.? Response: David Takes time to build with volunteers, will do our best Q: Would this have an HOA? Response from David- Yes would have to because it needs to take care of the detention pond Comment: Concern with Frank gaining 500K per lot, think he is getting money and using Habitat’s good name for ﬁnancial gain Comment- statement from United Neighborhood in Estes Park opposing rezoning Response from David- Conditional rezoning – development agreement between town and developer, outlines the requirements for the developer to have the rezoning requirements, Q: Are you willing to negotiate the number of lots and houses down so we can help people without building that many? Response from Frank- open to that Q: What keeps a homeowner from selling at a proﬁt? David gave an overview of past Deed restrictions that govern how a homeowner could sell. Meeting concluded a little before 5PM as the Library was closing 47 add that to the mortgage to ensure that the total cost of owning the home is less than 30% of a household’s gross income. He also explained in his original presentation Comment: An individual wanted help with Math and asked are they quarter acre lots. There was back and forth with many and apparent confusion over the amount of houses that could be developed in the event of rezoning. David and Frank attempted to clarify the concept plan on a handout that was distributed and the screen (see attachments of those two items). Conditionally rezoned- Comment: A resident expressed concern that the 3 larger lots could be further subdivided. Response: Frank mentioned that the size of those lots would not allow a further subdividing given their size as any division would result in lower than ¼ acre lots. Paul Hornbeck concurred. Comment: A resident expressed concern about wildlife and the detention pond Q: A resident asked if the City ever changed from E1 to R rezoning? Response: Paul Hornbeck indicated that he did not have the answer to that question as he would need to research that. Q: A resident expressed concern that the people Habitat would be bringing in to own these homes don’t have the experience of living in Estes Park and asked if Habitat rehab houses? David clariﬁed that Habitat is not bringing in people from outside Estes. That the households buying these homes are either working in Estes (and likely driving from other places) or living in unsustainable, unsafe or una!ordable conditions in Estes Park. Response: from David 213 Bighorn- EPHA invested in the home to make it a!ordable, rehab, bought at 400k, put in 98K, sold for $350K Comment: There was a comment from a resident suggesting this amounts to cluster zoning and claiming that cluster zoning is illegal in the State of Colorado. They also expressed their opinion that this property can’t support this much development and we need to preserve the open space Q: How would habitat manage having 8 more units when they have 5 already? Response from David- Not going to be building these anytime soon, need to get through the others ﬁrst. Q: Objective of Habitat should blend into the neighborhood- how to do this with E-1 housing next door? This build will stick out based o! the zoning, Response from David- These homes would be built and sold to those households at 60-80% AMI which is a little higher AMI than what we currently build for (< 60%). He sited that their architect is Steve Lane and we will work to build it so it does not stick out. David acknowledged that the term “blend in” is subjective but we are looking to do 1 story homes with no basements so from the outside it will look a bit larger. He also expressed his opinion that it is hard to ﬁnd single story 3 and 4 bedroom homes for homeowners to age in place so this site represents a good opportunity to do so. 48 49 50 Attachment A (Handout) 51 Coyote Run Concept Plan & Overview 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Affordable lots under Habitat’s Program (8) Market Rate Lots (3) 3 1 2 Existing House &06DQG+DELWDWIRU+XPDQLW\6W9UDLQ9DOOH\KDYHDELQGLQJ3XUFKDVHDQG6DOH$JUHHPHQWWR SXUVXHWKHEHORZFRQFHSWSODQ6XPPDU\RIWKHDJUHHPHQWLVDVIROORZV *&06VHOOVORWVLQDVL]HPDWHULDOO\FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKRVHEHORZ *&06EHDUVULVNDQGFRVWRISXUVXLQJDUH]RQLQJUHSODWDQGDOOLQIUDVWUXFWXUHWRFUHDWHEXLOGHU UHDG\ORWV *&06DJUHHVWRDWWDLQ+DELWDW¶VDSSURYDOEHIRUHHDFKVXEPLVVLRQDQGWRSXUVXHDQ5GHVLJQDWHG UH]RQLQJVXSSRUWHGE\WKH(VWHV)RUZDUG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ *&06DQG+DELWDWDJUHHWRSXUVXHDFRQGLWLRQDOUH]RQLQJSUHGLFDWHGRQHLJKWORWVEHLQJGHVLJ QDWHGDWWDLQDEOH *&06ZLOOSURYLGHLQWHUHVWILQDQFLQJDWFORVLQJVR+DELWDW¶VGHVLUHGRXWRISRFNHWH[SHQVHV DUHPLQLPL]HGXQWLOVDOHVSULFHDQGUHPDLQGHU *3XUFKDVHSULFHLVORZHURIDSSUDLVDORUNORW+DELWDWEHOLHYHVWKLVWREHEHORZPDUNHWYDOXH WRVHFXUHEXLOGHUUHDG\ORWVZLWKRXWH[SHQVH\HDUVLQWKHIXWXUH Contact Informa!on: Habitat for Humanity St Vrain Valley; David Emerson, Execu!ve Director, 303 946-5190, Demerson@stvrainhabitat.org CMS Planning & Development Inc.; Frank Theis, Owner, 970 231 -6200, "heis3@gmail.com Illustra on Purposes only. Final lot layout predicated on further engineering and Town review and acceptance 52 Attachment A Handout (o!ered to individuals in the room): 53 Attachment B (Presentation) 54 Neighborhood Meeting January 11, 2025 Coyote Run Homeownership Opportunity 55 Introductions & Agenda Agenda Objective of Agreement Habitat Overview & Plan Concept Plan Questions & Feedback Introductions Co-Applicants: CMS Planning, Frank Theis, Owner Habitat for Humanity St Vrain Valley, Director, David Emerson Town of Estes Park; Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner 56 Objective of Agreement +DELWDWIRU+XPDQLW\¶V,QWHUHVW 7RVHFXUH(LJKW³%XLOGHU5HDG\´ORWVIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRPHRZQHUVKLS +DELWDWDYRLGVULVNDQGFRVWRIHQWLWOHPHQWDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH 7RVHFXUHORWVDWDSULFHDQGFDVKUHTXLUHPHQWWKDWLVDIIRUGDEOH 7RVXSSRUWDGHQVLW\UHTXHVWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH(VWHV)RUZDUG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ 7RSXUVXHDFRQGLWLRQDOUH]RQLQJWKDWHQVXUHVSXEOLFRIDIIRUGDELOLW\ 5HTXHVW(LJKWORWVEHGHVLJQDWHGDWWDLQDEOH 57 Our Mission Seeking to put God’s love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. 58 Serving the St. Vrain Valley Transforming lives for 36 years Build and renovate homes and then sell at no profit with an affordable mortgage 86% of Habitat homes have original owner Less than 2% Foreclosure Rate across the U.S. (none in St Vrain Valley) Our homes represent $38M in Assessed Value Habitat homeowners in this area have paid over $1.7 Million in Property Taxes Across Colorado, Top 2 industries our Homeowners work in: ◦#1 Healthcare, #2 Education 59 Who Qualifies for a new Habitat Home? Clear Housing Need ü > than 30% of income on housing ü Safety/space issues Ability to Pay ü 30-80% AMI ü Steady income/ manageable debt Willingness to Partner ü 250-500 hours of sweat equity ü Training and Classes US Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident 60 How are families impacted by participating in Habitat ’s program? Long Term Impacts Greater sense of well-being Improved health Safer neighborhood Increased savings Improved educational outcomes Higher education Reduced need for public assistance 61 Family / Cross Generational Impact Patty was selected for home in 1999 with her 9-year-old daughter Was a Certified Nursing Assistant Went back to school and now a Registered Nurse Daughter graduated from CSU In 2020, Patty paid off her Habitat mortgage early 1/3rd of our families work in the medical field 62 63 Habitat for Humanity Homes § Affordable to Buy Priced at cost Habitat as Mortgage Lender originate’s at 30% of a person’s income § Affordable to Own Energy Efficient Various Construction Professionals assist with each home § Blended Architecture Various styles of homes in numerous communities § Real Estate Impact 64 Habitat as Mortgage Lender Habitat arranges financing originating mortgage at 30% or less of a household’s income Habitat St Vrain is a certified Mortgage Packager for the US Department of Agriculture Direct Loan program USDA Direct Mortgage Program Since 1959 exists to provide affordable mortgages to low to moderate income households in rural designated areas No downpayment required 33 and 38 year mortgages Rate can be subsidized down to achieve affordability Mortgage costs (including escrow) set at 29% of a household’s income 65 Coyote Run Analysis Habitat cost assumptions: $125k lot + $275k-$325k costs = $400k-$450k direct costs Last two Estes Park homes had direct costs of $189k and 205k (No land, entitlement or infrastructure costs) Habitat for Humanity must serve households below 80% AMI 50%-80% Average Median Income Household of 4; Between $59,400 ($28.56/hr) and $95,040 ($45.69 an hour) Estimated Sales Price/Mortgage to be affordable; Sales Price Principal & Interest - USDA Direct Loan Escrow Total 400,000$ $1,054.75 506.91$ 1,561.66$ 450,000$ $1,186.59 569.00$ 1,755.59$ Mortgage AMI Level Income Affordable housing cost* 50% 59,400$ 1,485.00$ 80% 95,040$ 2,376.00$ ** Mortgage or rent payment (30% of income) 66 Habitat for Humanity St Vrain Valley has built homes in 18 different neighborhoods in Dacono, Frederick, Erie, Longmont, Lyons and Estes Park. “I have worked with Habitat for over 12 years and there is no detectable difference in quality between their home construction and other dwellings in the neighborhoods where they construct their homes. In fact, in terms of final quality, our inspectors consider them as one of the better builders they encounter in the field.” - Chris Allison, former Chief Building Official, City of Longmont 67 What is the impact on the value of neighboring homes when a Habitat home is built near them? •Habitat sites 11 national studies, conducted over many years, in many different locations; they all refute the notion that lower income housing has a detrimental affect on neighboring property values. • 2016 Trulia Research: “There doesn’t go the neighborhood” Conclusion: “In the nation’s 20 least affordable housing markets, low-income housing built during a 10-year span shows no effect on nearby home values.” National Studies •Habitat has built multiple homes in 14 different neighborhoods in Longmont. •Three local case studies show a positive impact on real estate values. Local experience 68 Local Real Estate Impact Case Study at Mill Village * Original study completed in 2020; recent sales from 2022 and 2023 show prices between $463,000 and $635,000. Six Habitat homes built 2003-2004 and then three more Habitat homes built 2009-2010. There are a total of 28 houses on the same street (19 non-Habitat homes). Four non-Habitat houses had purchases in 2005 to 2007 and then sold sometime between 2016 and 2020 •Average Initial Purchase Price: $257,000 •Average Recent* Sales Price: $391,000 •Price Increase range: $105,000 - $160,000 69 Local Real Estate Impact Case Study at Quail Ridge * Original study done in 2020, recent sales from 2022 and 2023 show prices between $460,000 and $705,000. Seven Habitat homes were built from late 2006 to 2008. Five are on one block of 13 (8 non-Habitat Homes) Four houses had purchases in 2004 or 2005 just before Habitat activity and then sold sometime in from 2017 to 2020: •Average Initial Purchase Price: $291,900 •Average Recent Sales Price: $407,875 •Price Increase range: $89,400 - $144,500 70 Overview of Agreement &06DQG+DELWDWIRU+XPDQLW\6W9UDLQ9DOOH\KDYHDELQGLQJ3XUFKDVHDQG6DOH$JUHHPHQWWRSXUVXHWKHEHORZ FRQFHSWSODQ6XPPDU\RIWKHDJUHHPHQWLVDVIROORZV *&06VHOOVORWVLQDVL]HPDWHULDOO\FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFRQFHSWSODQ *&06EHDUVULVNDQGFRVWRISXUVXLQJDUH]RQLQJUHSODWDQGDOOLQIUDVWUXFWXUHWRFUHDWHEXLOGHUUHDG\ORWV *&06DJUHHVWRDWWDLQ+DELWDW¶VDSSURYDOEHIRUHHDFKVXEPLVVLRQDQGWRSXUVXHDQ5GHVLJQDWHGUH]RQLQJ VXSSRUWHGE\WKH(VWHV)RUZDUG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ *&06DQG+DELWDWDJUHHWRSXUVXHDFRQGLWLRQDOUH]RQLQJSUHGLFDWHGRQHLJKWORWVEHLQJGHVLJQDWHG DWWDLQDEOH *&06ZLOOSURYLGHLQWHUHVWILQDQFLQJDWFORVLQJVR+DELWDW¶VGHVLUHGRXWRISRFNHWH[SHQVHVDUH PLQLPL]HGXQWLOVDOHVSULFHDQGUHPDLQGHU *3XUFKDVHSULFHLVORZHURIDSSUDLVDORUNORW+DELWDWEHOLHYHVWKLVWREHEHORZPDUNHWYDOXHWR VHFXUHEXLOGHUUHDG\ORWVZLWKRXWH[SHQVH\HDUVLQWKHIXWXUH 71 Concept Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Affordable lots under Habitat’s Program (8) Market Rate Lots (3) 3 1 2 Existing House 72 Q & A 73 22 June 2025 Estes Park Mayor and Board of Trustees Re: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II Respected Elected Officials: I attended the Planning Commission meeting on 17 June 2025 and observed the discussion and subsequent vote recommending approval for the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II. Subsequently, I reviewed the video of the meeting prior to writing this opinion. The following is my interpretation of the interactions and discussions that transpired and my opinions and positions on the topics addressed. Any inaccuracies are unintended. The Planning Commission’s decision to recommend approval of this project is a travesty for citizens of both the town and entire valley. My opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II continues and is bolstered and based on the following issues: 1) The property is identified as an important wildlife area – deer high use and, just outside the boundary of the high use area for elk. The Senior Planner made this point clear, stating the important deer use area twice during the meeting. Clearly, Staff and the Planning Commissioners either ignored this critical designation or simply have no consideration for wildlife. Furthermore, the Planner stated that any wildlife impacts would be mitigated through implementation of the Code requirements, i.e. fence restrictions, etc. As an Environmental Scientist, I find this claim to be dubious, at best. Wildlife need space – to move, forage, bear young, seek shelter, and can only tolerate close proximity to humans so much, some species better than others. Consider the safe distance to remain from a cow elk and her calf. One-acre parcels, though as one of the public comment presenters pointed out, do impact the natural environment. I agree. However, one-acre parcels provide adequate space for many of the species in the Estes Valley. I can attest that ours does based on the diversity of species that visit our property. The requested development with one-half and one-quarter acre lots, including space for ADUs, does not provide adequate space and will have a devastating adverse impact on wildlife which cannot be mitigated. 2) Once the smoke is lifted and the mirrors removed, it is clear that the current proposal is just re- marketing or repackaging of the previous plan to increase human density in an area where low density is desirable/necessary and currently exists and the impacts of the proposed development to the area are drastically understated. Again, the attainable and affordable housing hue and cry is being used as an excuse for increased density and development. The development plan for this property is deceptive and misleading regarding the actual density that is being proposed for approval as there is no mention of ADUs. To their credit, the Planning Commissioners explored this topic with the Senior Planner and Town Attorney. The Senior Planner indicated that all of the lots in the proposed development are allowed an ADU, by right. Hence, this DOUBLES the homes per lot! So, in actuality, the total 12 lots do not equal 12 living units but 24 homes! For the 8-quarter acre lots to be deed restricted, this allows 4 units per acre! The discussion also brought to light that there is no limitation on the number of occupants that can live in a dwelling. Hence, traffic congestion and parking could be worse than planned. Exploring this line of query further, a Commissioner asked if the additional impacts from the ADUs were considered during the evaluation of the proposed development. The Planner stated that only the main homes were considered as ADUs could be constructed with any property in Estes that met the minimum lot size requirements. As this is a new development and purportedly supported by the Code and vision of the Comprehensive Plan, the failure by Staff to perform a detailed evaluation of the additional impacts from the ADUs is reason enough to deny this application. Since ADUs are allowed by right, then the Town must assume that all ADUs WILL be built. Again, we are not talking about existing properties who could build an ADU, but new development based on a Comprehensive Plan that encourages the maximum number of dwelling units and human population. The Habitat Director stated that the ability of the deed restricted properties to have an ADU was desirable. 3) As I stated in previous letters, “…I would point out that the request for rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive and the rationale justifying said request have already been adjudicated and the original application denied by a Town Board vote of 7-0 on 26 September 2023. Since this denial, there have been no “changes in conditions in the areas affected”, which are physical changes to the immediately surrounding parcels. In point of fact, the Applicant’s current development of one acre lots in “Phase 1”, in accordance and consistent with the existing zoning, further supports the conclusion that no changes in conditions have occurred.” However, the Community Development Director was asked by a Commissioner what he believed, based on his experience, constituted a ‘change in condition’. The Director responded that it was his opinion that ‘a change in condition’ included administrative changes, such as the adoption of new planning, not just physical changes and that the issuance of the Comprehensive Plan constituted a ‘change in condition’. Additionally, the Director believes a change in housing needs – increase in home prices, housing needs assessment, constitutes a ‘change in condition’ as well. Relatedly, a discussion ensued regarding the use of the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission – aspiration guidance or regulatory, like the Code. My take-away from this discussion is that the Community Development department advocates whichever interpretation is most favorable to development. A Commissioner pointed out that the Code was yet to be updated, though this was in progress, to reflect the new Comprehensive Plan and that the plan lacks sufficient detail or granularity for thorough analysis of a proposal. I believe that the Development Director’s, and if this is indeed the Town’s, position, that the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Housing Needs Assessment constitute a ‘change in condition’ to be an extreme overreach of authority! Such an interpretation effectively renders any and all zoning as unreliable by any property owner as changes to zoning may be approved based on the whims of the Community Development Department. This erodes the property rights of current owners while benefiting developers. See above. No changes in conditions in the areas affected have occurred. Deny this request. 4) The potential involvement of Habitat for Humanity, or any similar organization, as an Applicant does not constitute a “change in conditions” and thus is irrelevant. During the Planning Commission meeting the Town Attorney informed the Commissioners that reviewing the contract between Habitat and the Developer would be of limited value since the contract would contain several exit points for Habitat to withdraw from the contract. The Attorney went further to say that he did not understand why Habitat was an applicant. The Habitat Director emphasized that there is no guarantee that Habitat would be involved in the future and build these units as there are many steps that must be taken to achieve construction. Habitat’s involvement was not guaranteed. Hence, Habitat’s presence as an applicant and association with this rezoning request must be ignored. 5) A Commissioner commented that several of the lots are irregular and less than a quarter of an acre and asked why. The Planner replied that because of the open area size, less than the stipulated quarter acre is allowed. The Commissioner seemed to want to base support of this explanation on the fact that there are existing lots which were grandfathered in as acceptable and thus these lots could be as well. I do not agree with this concept. This is a new development. Existing properties are not in question. If this is the case, why have Code standards anyway? Why would anyone allow new construction to not meet the code requirement? I noted that the option of reducing the number of lots considered to meet the quarter acre requirement was not discussed and therefore I assume, not considered as this would result in less density. While the Code may allow the suggested variation, I believe allowing such is disingenuous to the community and thus is yet another reason to deny this request. 6) Keep in mind that denying this rezoning request does not stop development. This property can still be developed as per the current zoning – with ADUs - and as evidenced by the three lots that are currently being developed. Both the Habitat Director and Estes Park Housing Authority Director clearly stated that other options exist for providing the desired attainable and affordable housing – redevelopment, rehab, and remodels. Thus, this rezoning request is a ‘want’ and not a ‘need’. The negative impacts from this proposed development which is unsuitable for the area and insulting to the existing property owners in the area are avoidable if this ‘spot zoning’ request is denied. I recognize that the Town Attorney does not believe that this rezoning request constitutes ‘spot zoning’ as this is a change from one residential category to another and not as if in his example, putting a gas station in the midst of a residential area. I believe the immense increase in living units and population density is so drastic and catastrophically impacts the current character of the existing neighborhood that it is analogous to the gas station example. Furthermore, though I am certain the Town Attorney is speaking from a legal perspective and is ethically obligated to support his Client, the Town, I am concerned that this extreme definition of ‘spot zoning’ only supports the theoretical ‘town’ and does not protect the interests of the citizens. 7) Accurately or not, my impression of the Planning Commission’s review of the rezoning request was that while they asked excellent questions and pursued several lines of inquiry which should have raised sufficient concern to deny the request, in the end they ‘rubberstamped’ the Community Development department’s recommendation. The Community Director stated, “your staff have recommended approval.” One Commissioner indicated, I am paraphrasing and not directly quoting, I view our job is to look through the lens of whether the Planning Department provided sufficient information to support their findings. I would recommend approval. Another indicated a desire for his children to be able to move up here, so he supported the motion to approve. I find it disturbing that, while I appreciate the Planning Commission’s efforts and due diligence in pursuing detailed questions on the merits of the application, they defer to the Community Development department for such a critical decision. The Community Development department will always advocate for development and the Developer, whether a project is suitable for the community or not. They do not represent, nor are they concerned about the impacts to affected neighbors. The citizens rely on the Planning Commission to dispassionately and without bias review matters coming before them and decide issues based on established regulatory requirements, i.e. Code with consideration of both the positive and negative impacts to all of the citizens of the community. I want to believe this is how the Commission approached this application, but it seems clear to me that the concerns of those citizens that will be directly negatively impacted by their decision were ignored. Once again, the citizens are relying on the Town Board of Trustees to protect their property rights and interests. In closing, please remember to represent the entire citizenry, and not just the Developer, and consistent with the Town Board decision of 26 September 2023, deny this rezoning application. Sincerely, Joe W. Dowdey 1220 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Mobile: 970-779-1308 Email: joedowdey@yahoo.com !"##$%"&&'(')*+,,-./.01234566789/:;<039= >?@ABC.4DAEFE8P/;;7?QH?Q<3N8=A90?.?07?QH?Q<3N8ARRN3S.7?QH?Q<3N8AT:NR1O/U?;H3.-VP/U?;H3.7?QH?Q<3NN8AWN/.V;/.0/QH?N7?QH?Q<3N8A013C.8;C.@7?QH?Q<3N8AX;/..:.87?QH?Q<3N8/XX3:.H:.8HP/HZ;/..:.8N?0399?.@?@HP?U3.:.80P/.8?Q/H[DGZ?/VY:?S<LP:QP/@/;N?/@1R.3SS?\N?;33V:.8/H:H/8/:.<]P/9?WC;<?:Y?@Q39/.1;?HH?NQN?8/N@:.8HP?3X:.:3.Q3WHP?.?:8PR3NP33@A/.@Z;/..:.8:Q:8.3N:.8HP?9<?/N?H/_X/1?NQA93QH3WCQW3N9/.11?/NQ<LP?W/0HHP/H3CNY3:0?Q/N?.3HP?/N@:QY?N1HN3CR;:.HP:Q@?Y?;3X?NV.?SHP?U3.:.8SP?.P?XCN0P/Q?@HP?XN3X?NH1/.@W?;HHP/HP?03C;@QCRY?NHHP.H:.C:.8H3/HH?9XHH3N?`U3.?HP?XN3X?NH13Y?N/.@3Y?NQX?/VQ;3C@;1H3HP?W/0HHP/HP?W??;QP?a3/N@R?0/CQ?P?P/Q:.Y3;Y?@O/R:H/HW3NOC9/.:H1<LP?Y?N1O/R:H/HHP/HH3;@HP?.?:8PR3NQP/H:HS3C;@H/V?4F1?/NQH3Y?H/.@RC:;@3.HP/HXN3X?NH1<LP?Y?N1O/R:H/HHP/HS:;;.3H3.;1/;;3C.:HQH30N?/H??Y?.93N?@?.Q:H1AW:N?@/.8?NAS:;@;:W?03NN:@3N@:QNCXH:3.AHN/WW:0f3././;N?/@1Y9?.H:3.HP?.?:8PR3NP33@HP/HS:;;R?W3N?Y?N0P/.8?@@C?H3HP:QY?N1R/@@?0:Q:3.<?L3S.a3/N@H3@?.1HP:Q?8N?8:3CQN?iC?QHH3N?`U3.?HP:QXN3X?NH1/8/:.<Z/QQ:.8HP:QS3C;@/H/.1.?:8PR3NP33@:Q/HN:QV3W@?Y?;3X9?.H<Z;?/Q?@3HP?N:8PHHP:.8/.@@?.1HP:QN?iC?QH<#xpry" !"#$%!&'!&()!*&$+!,-./(!!0!(1$$!!%!!%0!$()2!#3!($4)$#&3!($()7$#!#318'!4#,,1,,$$!2!9!,,)(!:&1!% !;5<60=>+.4BC@DEB@BBA D F@DB@GDH@HB@GK@LGM @GNGOJHJBHB@K @OH BPHJIA G@JG@BHBG @GNQ DGB JBO@BGJFSTUBGK@OHJA D GBSQ@BBDJ@BK@ B@GDH@HS@AA BOC@DBBQ\]Y\^_WXY`a^WY\Wb[cdZ^eHHJ?FK@?OSA @G@AC@GHJJbW_[iWXYj[hY\c^Z[Wb^\k^_\l^\Yk_XbZXbimYnYmY\ZYkb\WXY[aacbZ[\WoiiW[WYpY\W^ C@DJAB@Ancrbkn^mZYmW[b\^m`a^WY\Wb[cd[aacbZ[\Wi@G@AC@GHC@+9!)$@B @JGB@AJuFJSK@HGBB@Fu@I@OHFJA @OHHJFJ @BDAJuFJSK@N@AJuDB@JJ@G@D@HuPA@vUB@HTAGwuxAyJGPD GB@K KB@{B P@K BJ@@ @AAJJKKB@HHD@FODGK@BKSJGDHGBBAJGJKMzGP@BBFJSFDO@@JJ@IB @GJSGBDG@ GJ BBQ {HSB@PDQN@@JJ@BGKG@|O@S@KJODSBBGP}qGGD @OB_bWXa^WY\Wb[c~€oi[\kmYhbiYkX^riYX^ckkYnb\bWb^\i@ H@@A BD GBBJOGB@D MJu?G‚BD@HB wuxA ! "##$%&'#(&$)*+,- ./012340552367890:;;<3;<=:>07?5@:708A3<@34;:1=>20B=5>=/C/0=C293<2338@2:<:@>0<DEA=C6<0F90731- HIJKLMNOMNPLKQMORIPNSLKTULVVWLUNPLRXVWQMNYYJQONVQRXZ- .1=800/36C25><00>5A3<;08=5><=:/5>35:A07?1:7[3/5236780<DEA=C6<0\90731G- .]^]];<=4:<?<3:850>9:@[A3<5696<9:/05>:>0_^`A00bcdefgHhijklmhnomdpqrllms- tNSLupRvHRwYtJNXkRNJxlyztPRwRVLtPRVLOVQRXRvVWLLX{QP|ULXMIPQXSVWNVKL{LJRYwLXVQMQXWNPwRXU}QVWQVMMLVVQXSNXKYPR{QKLML~INJNXKwLNXQXSvIJRYYRPVIXQVUVRYNPVQOQYNVLQXVWLKLOQMQRXwN€QXSYPROLMMVRNOWQL{LNWLNJVWULX{QPRXwLXVs- kRNJjluztPRVLOV}QJKJQvLNXKLXWNXOL|QRKQ{LPMQVUNXKLORMUMVL. ‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ…ˆ…‰‚…ŠD‹qNOPLMŒIMVYPLMLP{LKRXVWLmWIw| }QJKJQvLIMLRIPŽ… ‰‚ ‘ˆŠˆ‘ ‘’‚“‘”•ˆ‘4…‰ƒ–Š7… ‚…•“ˆ„‚C‘ —@‘˜NMN|QPVWQXSNPLNsdIPJRVMONXNOORwwRKNVLVWQMs- tNSLpyRvlMVLM™NJJLUfNXKmPIMV}WQOWHdšttJNXPLvLPLXOLMNMSIQKNXOL›œšžŸ ¡Ÿ¢£¤¥¡ £ š¦žšžœ £¥œ§¡ ¨ §£¥œš ¥ š©¢£¤ª§£«Ÿ¬§Ÿ¢¥žœ £§£«£§®¯°±°²³°®´µ±°¶·¸¯³¶¹°±°¹º»º³¼¼º·µ±¹´·±º½³¼¹³¶¾´¿À§£¦žÁŸ¬ Â§ªª ¦Ã¥Ä°µ¸½±°´ÅŸ¬ «¢¥Ÿ¢£¡Ÿ¢© ›Ÿ¬¨ÆÇž£Èšž¥œ ¡ŸÀž£Ÿ§¢£ÉÊ½ËÌ»Í³¹¾°É¸¯°Î®Å¬§© ¥¬§œ «žš¢« £Ÿ¢Ÿ¦§£« £Ðž¦œšžŸ ¡Ÿ¢ž£Ášž¨ÁŸš « © ªžœ¨ £ŸÇXVLKJLNKLPMQXJNXKIMLKLOQMQRXMnNM€URIVRKLXUPLORwwLXKNVQRXVRRIPmR}XxRNPKNO€XR}JLKSLwIJVQYJLMLOVQRXMRvRIPORwYPLWLXMQ{LYJNXRPQXVWLJLNMVPL~ILMVNMQVLIP}QJKJQvL MVNXKRXfRXSMNXKtLN€™QL}RPm}QXNXKtLN€™QL}NXKJRR€QXYLPMRXNVQXSORwwIXQVUOWNPNOVLP{MJRR€QXSNVVWLYNYLPQXvPRXVRvURI|LONIMLVWQMQMORwYJLVVLPNXKVWLPLQMjdHhijklQXHRXKQVQRXMQXVWLNPLNMNvvLOVLKsI LiWPXKVtN}MRX Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment). Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* 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. Bart Dannels 1655 Twin Drive, Estes Park & 306 Tysinger Dr, Hampton VA For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. Coyote Run 685 Peak View Opposition 2025.pdf 72.44KB Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone Jan 2023.pdf 81.72KB Adjunct Property Impact.pdf 261.55KB 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Three letters are provided for your consideration: - Opposition to current 685 Peak View rezoning - Opposition to previous 685 Peak View rezoning submitted Jan 2023 (contents are still valid and provide additional information) - Research on the impact of development on adjacent properties Respectfully, Bart Dannels To: Estes Park Planning Commission June 17, 2025 From: Bart Dannels Subject: Coyote Run Phase II, 685 Peak View Rezone There are and will be several well-researched, coherent, logical, and compelling documents and presentations concerning the proposed rezoning of the subject property, 685 Peak View, Coyote Run Phase II. They address important rezoning factors and fact such as change in conditions, compliance with existing guidance and approved development plans, and impact on surrounding properties. I oppose the current proposed rezoning just as I did with the developer’s first rezoning request in 2023. The main reasons for my opposition have not changed: 1) financial motivation by developers because of the lucrative Estes Park housing market, using workforce or “affordable” housing and Habitat for Humanity as justifications, 2) the need for Estes to retain the character that attracts visitors and residents, and 3) placing priority on the needs of permanent Estes Park residents and property owners over those rezoning and developing for financial gain. Business development is very important to Estes Park as you are well aware not just because of your involvement with the Town Board and Planning Commission, but also as residents yourselves. It is clear from those of you who have published biographies on the Town website, even though some of you are business owners yourselves, it does not appear that any of you came to Estes to with a primary motivation of making money. Consider why you came to Estes and why approximately 6,000 full-time residents live here. The individual business interests of some people allow them to live here but most are here for the small-town aspects and advantages, the natural environment and scenery, the community, and as a place to enjoy as it was intended through careful, responsible development recommendations and decisions that weigh the needs of the residents of Estes Park versus the financial motivations of businesses. I am confident you will do just that again and disapprove rezoning of 685 Peak View as well and use the same judgement for all future rezoning requests for other development efforts. My grandfather, father, brother, and uncle were dedicated to the future of Estes Park, my grandfather serving on the Town Board for twenty years, my father on the Town Board for twelve years then Mayor for another twelve years, my brother’s twenty-plus years as a volunteer fire fighter with the Estes Park Fire Department, and my uncle’s many years as Chairman of the Planning Commission and membership on the Board of Adjustment and Improvement Authority. Their vision did not include high density development for the sake of financial gain or questionable use of workforce and “affordable” housing as justification. Thank you for your consideration of my comments and how they reinforce opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. The people of Estes Park are its most important resource and priority should be given to their interests. Respectfully, Bart Dannels 16 June 2025 Planning Commissioners, Community Development Department, Estes Park Mayor, and Board of Trustees Re: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II The purpose of this letter is to restate my adamant opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II. I have written several letters regarding the rezoning of this property, including during the initial failed attempt by the Developer/Applicant to rezone this property as well as this latest attempt. My opposition continues to strengthen, and I support and agree with the comments and concerns provided by other citizens in opposition to this egregious application and thus will not repeat their powerful and just statements. As I stated in an earlier letter, “…I would point out that the request for rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive and the rationale justifying said request have already been adjudicated and the original application denied by a Town Board vote of 7-0 on 26 September 2023. Since this denial, there have been no “changes in conditions in the areas affected”, which are physical changes to the immediately surrounding parcels. In point of fact, the Applicant’s current development of one acre lots in “Phase 1”, in accordance and consistent with the existing zoning, further supports the conclusion that no changes in conditions have occurred.” The potential involvement of Habitat for Humanity, or any similar organization, as an Applicant does not constitute a “change in conditions” and thus is irrelevant. In closing, please remember to represent the entire citizenry, and not just the Developer, and consistent with the Town Board decision of 26 September 2023, deny this rezoning application. Sincerely, Joe W. Dowdey 1220 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Mobile: 970-779-1308 Email: joedowdey@yahoo.com !"#$%&'()*+,-.//01.23%45678779:;<=>?@A8=B C8?DEF?GHDIJF?9:STUVUW87=U?:Q47WL??9?X<U>:U>@8YXBdeeaffad`[]fghi\j\`kl__cd`m[]`[kn\]o[fpdt]a`ud]e\od`wdtidmd`fak[]wetmrgai|[`i !"##$%"&'()*+,-*./01234536789:;8<= >84?@A4BC?DED31G31:8POL/M9744N4O631G31:8PO=P1?8MM81NGN84G8GS3MP8M8135P3V84N4O8WCXFJ370YN32:KSN1MP8M8179SZGS3K824\8A4;N9W8P4A<3P8A1Y3PZO885P371841:KS813P3718413GP7WWN;84J370YN3228A95849Z;84GN4A3G8O3G28P13:]GS3P;84;3P4W3P34;32NGS2N959NW3?WNP3574O3P1?3P81N84?3G;:28A95WAPGS3P57<7O3G]AP7P37?2SN;S;APP34G9ZT934512N953P4311745S8<31?28A95T353O1N4ON4;7P47GN848WAPT74;84O31GN84:KS3849Z5NWW3P34;31T3G2334GS179745GS3;APP34G843N1GS3N4;9A1N848W748PO74NV7GN842NGS72399^3PNGZ:>ZSA1T745745U7P31GP84O1AMM8PG3P18W_7TNG7G?745S7Y3ONY35N4GS3NPTAN95N4OMP8[3;G1:U7<WP7409Z5N17MM8N4G35N4GS398;79P3MP3Y37998235GS7GWN438PO74NV7GN84G8T3;8443;G352NGSGSN1M88P9ZGS8A42NGSY89A4G33PTAN953P1?NGN15NWWN;A9GG8A453P1G745S8274Z_7TNG7GS8P37931G7G328A95T3WN474;N799Z7;;311NT93G8GS3A1A79_7TNG7G;9N34G1753Y398M<34G28A95T353GPN<34G79G8799NG1P31N534G1:41G8GSN1MP8M81798WW3P481AT1G74GN79N<MP8Y3<34GG8GS38PNON479843Z8W9NW3W8PGS3;APP34GP31N534G1c74N<79745SA<74dW8PGS317038W<1:e33aM3;GGS3K8248W`1G31J7P0G817W3OA7P5GS7GbA79NGZ8W9NW3W82S89NY3S3P3745M7ZG7a31:Y3 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0012/3"4 567898:;67898:8<=8>?@AB C@<DEF<GHDIJIS89T8@UA8<75UTL<<Q<V;86786>@WVB@UU@6Q7Q@<7@7Y8UW@U@6LT7@?YL<V87Y8Z@<Q<V7@LTT@:AL66Q98@98W=898T@UA8R:Q[8L<=XLW8T@<V7QA86FUU@W78W6@[`LaQ7L7[@W`FAL<Q7R>b98W7Y8R8LW6:87Y868Y@A86L<=L?cFQW8=A@W87YL<@FW6YLW8@[aTQ678W6Y8TUQ<V7@aFQT=7Y8A>@WQ?aT866Q<V6@[`LaQ7L7Q67YL7Y@A86YL98YQ67@WQ?LTTRa88<6Q7FL78=Q<L:LR:bCCgeXOh[@W7Y@68TQ9Q<V7Y8W8L<=7Y@68TQ9Q<V<8LW>O`d]ib]bfdS]jNebCCgeXOh>h@F=@<@7<88=A87@8<FA8WL787Y8AL<R:LR6Q<:YQ?Y[@W?Q<Vl:QTTa87WLR7Y8?YLWL?78W@[7Y8LW8L>CL<RDAL<R@7Y8W6YL98LTW8L=RTQ678=7Y86:QTT?W8L78:Q7Y8mQ67Q<VQ<[WL67WF?7FW8DQ<L=8cFL7867W8876QZ8D@U8<6UL?8[@W@A8@:<8WQ<9867A8<76D87?D87?>NT@<V:Q7YLTT7Y868D7Y@FVYDQ67Y8[L?77YL77YQ6^@[7Y8?W8L7Q9Q7RD68<6Q7Q9Q7RL<=7Y@FVY7[FT<866<@WALTTRUW868<7Q<`LaQ7L7UW@VL<=898T@UA8<7>8UTL<<Q<V?@AAQ66Q@<7@L?7FLTTRUTL<DQ<L?W8L7Q98L<=UW@L?7Q98:LRQ<?@<6FTD7@A887Y@F6Q<V?YLTT8<V86DL<=<@76QAUTRW8L?77@=898T@U8W6T@@^Q<V[@W8L6?@AAQ66Q@<7@9@78=@:<7YQ67W@FaT8=UW@U@6LTL<=^88U[LQ7Y:Q7Y7Y8U8@UT8L]LW^>pqrstuvwxyz{|}~w|w€ y‚Œˆž™Ÿ˜œ›•™Ÿ– —•š•š™˜š£–¥œ¦•š§Ÿ˜©™š£–ª£—¤¦™Ÿ›™¬™–¤Ÿœ®¯°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hijklmfnkfophq !"#$%&&'()$%*+,--./,0!%1!2))3$'4($0567897:;8<=><=?@@A7BCDEB6F GH:IJH:KLIMN<W@<WDB8VT5UC7::?:VA<W@<WDB8VFWW?B:<8WI<?WR789X<=?@@7:;[>7\<]<<:78<W?;<:@B^@><_W@<W78<7^B8M`Z<78WDaH8?:V@>7@@?6<[>7\WbW7:;>7\<W<8\<;B:W?c;?^^<8<:@:B:dU8B^?@]B78;WD[7CWB>7\<BU<87@<;78<7C<W@7@<EB6U7B\<8eLZ<78WD@><6BW@?6UB8@7:@7:;UB=<8^HCE8?@<8?77:;EB:@8BC?:8<7C<W@7@<?WfB:?:VDg><:U8BU<8CZ7UUU7@?]?C?@ZB^C7:;HW<?:C78V<78<7W7:;=?CC;<WE8?]<@><7CCB=<;;<\<CBU6<:@^B8BU@?67C<:hBZ6:;]<W@C7:;HW7V<D@?:V7W9?:VZBH@B@H8:;B=:@><7UUC?E7@?B:@B8<fB:<`iLQ<79j?<=a8?\<IklY_mnm[lo?@=7:;@H8:<;;B=:qdN]Z@><@B=:]B78;rDS>?W7UUC?E7@?B:?WUBB8CZEB:E<?\<;7:;UBB8CZ@>BHV>@WB^@><TQ<79j?<=78<7T;B:B@WHUUB8@@><U8BUBW<;;<\<CBU6<:@I[9:B=]<E7HW<[B=:B:<BZ^?8W@E8?@<8?7@>7@6HW@]<6<@?:7:Z8<fB:?:V8<sH<W@?WPTS><8<6HW@]<7E>7:V<B^EB:;?@?B:W?WEC<78CZ6<7:W?:@><78<7B^@><mQkbWo7;h7E<:@U8BU<8@ZB=:<8Wr7:;:B@@><<:@?8<@B=:DS>=WH88BH:;<;B:7CCW?;<W]Z_dKfB:?:VDSB7CCB=@>?W8<fB:<8<sH<W@=BHC;]<7\?BC7@?B:B^@><EB;<DB8<I]<E7HW<@>?WU8BU<8@Z?WWH88BH:;<;]Z_dKfB:?:V7:;;B<W:B@7;hB?:7:ZB@><8ufB:?:VUB@fB:?:VT7:;?CC<V7CH:;<8YBCB87;BC7=DaklkS7CCB=@>?W6?W@79<@B;767V<@><E>787E@<87:;sH7C?@ZB^@><U8BU<8@?<W?:@><78<7DSH8u<WU<E@^HCCZIR789X<=?@@ !"##$%&$'(&&!)*+,,-.+/!%&'($##&012345446789:;<=>5:? @A<BCA<DEBFGFA<67QRSTSU54:S<7O14UH<<6<V9S;7S;=5WV?bcc_dd_b^Y[deabccf^_ghXYiY]bjcY^gXYjZ[gcY^gX_[Ykgb[elgZmZ^no]]kZ^h[Ysb^_^`btuvw\YZxy_YzX[_iY{|iY^_t}Z~_gZgtb[}fcZ^_ghc_`g~Y‚ƒerZcZ`Z_^dgZ^h[Ysb^_^`{^`Ynd_^kYgY]ZdgpcYgY[Ysb^_^`zZdnY^_Yn{…Y[YZ[Y^bkZ^`Yd_^kgf[Ydb^Z\Yppb^dfjjb[g^b[Ysb^_^`btZ^hx_^nbtuvw\YZxy_YzX[_iY{‰a_psY^dZiY~YY^ibkZ]_^gY_[bjjbd_pb^_^cZ^htb[cd{…Ya_psY^dZ^_sZpb^Z]\]Z^{ ‹YegY\Ybj]Y‚dbf]nZiYZdZh{ngY_[j[bjY[pYd~ZdYnb^YŒ_dp^`sb^_^`{Xb^bgkbcj[bc_dYj[bjY[gh[_Y[ghbz^Y[d{[Ysb^_^`[Y fYdgZ^n]Ygg_d^Y_`~b[bbn[YcZ_^gY‡Zk[Y]bgc_^_ccY Yd_nY^g To the Planning Commission and Trustees, We would like to express some grave concerns we have for the future of our community. It seems that many of the aims of the Planning Commission do not reﬂect the desires of the citizens of Estes Park. The plan to build more and more houses, hotels and resorts will forever change the character of this small town. How will density aﬀect our infrastructure, our water supply, our ﬁre danger, our access to medical care, our wildlife, and our beautiful views? We already have a huge, unsightly apartment complex on South St. Vrain that is not even half occupied. Is that what we want for our town? We live in the Peak View area, and we are adamantly opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. The residents of this neighborhood all purchased their homes with the knowledge that the area is zoned E1, that any development would be single family homes on one acre lots. The developer of Coyote Run purchased the land knowing that it is zoned E1. Since then there have been no changes in the surrounding neighborhood. All of the new homes have been built on one acre lots, including those built by Mr. Theis. Please do not approve the rezoning of 685 Peak View. Please do not make density the goal in future rezoning requests. Tourists come to Estes Park to see wildlife and our beautiful mountains. Don’t drive them away by increasing traﬃc and decreasing wildlife. Sincerely, Christann and Bob Higley 751 Longs Drive Page 1 of 2 June 14, 2025 Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Sta , We are OPPOSED to any rezoning of Coyote Ridge Subdivision – Phase 2 located at 685 Peak View. It is unfortunate that we ﬁnd ourselves here again, opposing yet another rezoning request for this property — especially considering that it has been almost 2 years since the previous request to rezone this same parcel was unanimously denied. Our thoughts then and now remain unchanged — the concerns we raised in 2023 are still valid today, and the reasons for denial remain just as strong, if not stronger. What has changed in the conditions of the surrounding area since the last denial of this property? NONE. The conditions remain the same, and so do the concerns of the residents. This is not about Habitat for Humanity, this is about preserving our neighborhood’s long- standing character and integrity— the very qualities that drew us here and that continue to deﬁne our community today. This is the area we chose — and our neighbors chose — because of its natural beauty, abundant wildlife, peaceful environment, open space, and quietness, our quality of life — These qualities are not just preferences; they are the foundation of our community’s identity. The developer knew when he bought this property what the zoning was/is, “E-1”, and he had previously stated that he knew the neighbors would not go for anything less than the existing E-1 zoning of 1-Single Family home per acre or more. We strongly oppose this proposal to rezone the property from E-1 to “R”, including to make the 12-lot Concept Plan a condition of rezoning approval, for the following reasons: 1) The developer/applicant is using the basic Concept Plan of 12 lots be a Condition of a zoning approval. This is what I call The Monopoly game…Do Not Pass GO!" aka, the process is being rushed or manipulated — that the normal steps (like careful analysis or community input) are being bypassed. Page 2 of 2 2) Let us not be misled by the “Conditional” Concept Plan showing just 12 lots. Under the proposed zoning, density bonuses and the allowance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could result in a buildout far exceeding what is currently shown — particularly with the inclusion of ¼-acre and ½-acre lots. The true impact on density, traffic, infrastructure, and neighborhood character could be significantly greater than the concept plan suggests. This level of development is NOT consistent or compatible with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for Suburban Estate areas, which prioritize low-density, single-family residential use in keeping with the existing character of surrounding properties. Conditional rezoning on this particular Concept Plan sets a troubling precedent and ignores the concerns of residents who will be directly affected by increased density, and long-term negative impacts to the neighboring properties and the neighborhood character. Rezoning decisions should not be tailored to accommodate a specific development plan that has not been adequately vetted or supported. Let’s not bypass the proper process and steps of our guiding document that are in place. We highly urge you to Please deny the request to rezone 685 Peak View – Coyote Ridge Phase 2. Thank you! Christy and Jerry Jacobs 1655 Twin Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517 !"#$%&'()*+,--./,01&2345!6789:;8<=>?@7;8<9ABC>8DE8;<F GH<IJ98KLIMN=<;=EVA:O8:CBZWWV=;<[;SAVWV=;\];^_V8>8:V`SAVW;A<BaV7H<;\H<bcOS;HDd>;efVgg>==>V8ISCH88>8:h;WHA<g;8<IiUVe8jVHA\<V<[;WAVWV=;\A;^_V8>8:V`<[;bcOS;HDd>;e>8e[VC;VA>8WHA<`AVgl^K<VH8BV<[;A_V8>8:>8:VA7V8=<A97<>V8\>=<>87<`AVg<[H<=W;7>`>;\XBl^K_V8>8:79AA;8<CB>8WCH7;V8<[H<WAVW;A<BEk_V8>8:`VAHCCV`<[;A;H=V8=<[H<kWA;=;8<;\>8gBWA;m>V9=C;<<;A\H<;\G;W<;gX;AKNIMNMPEn9A;=;8<;\\9A>8:<[H<WA>VAH<<;gW<<VA;_V8;A;gH>8mHC>\I8VgH<<;Ae[VgHB8VeX;WHA<8;A>8:Xg><<>8:<[;8VeWAVWV=;\7[H8:;o9;=<>V8<[H<>`<[;WAVWV=;\7[H8:;e;A;<VX;>gWC;g;8<;\IV9A8;>:[XVA[VV\e>CCX;7[H8:;\HV=;e[V[Hm;7[V=;8<VgHD;<[>=V9A[Vg;E];=>\;8<=C>m>8:>8H\YV>8>8:WAVW;A<>;=HA;WAV`;=[Hm;eVAD;\[HA\<VH7[>;m;=977;==H8\A;eHA\>8<[;>A7[V=;8WAV`;==>V8=EU[;>A[HA\eVADHVA<98><B<V=;C;7<HWCH7;<VC>m;>8A;<>A;g;8<<[H<V``;A;\X;H9<BH8\7V8\><>V8=`VAWA>mH7BH8\A;W;A<>;==9AAV98\>8:H8\XVA\;A>8:bcOS;HDd>;eg;;<<[;\;=>A;=H8\A;p9>A;g;8<=`VAWAV=W;e8;A==;C;7<>8:<[>=H=<[;>AWA;`;AA;\8;>:[XVA[VV\>8e[>7[<VC>m;ETV=<[Hm;>8m;=<;\=>:8>`>7V9A7;=<VC>m;e><[>8V9A8;>:[XVA[VV\EqWWAVmHCV`<[;WAVWV=;\_V8>8:7[H8:;eV9C\X;m>;e;HX>8V9AXH7D=I`VAV9A\;7>=>V8<V>8m;=<>8<[>=8;>:[XVA[VV\H=V9A[Vg;EEEE;m;8>8l=<;=SHAV`9=eH8<<V`;;C<[H<e;e;A;X;<AHB;\XBV9A<Ve8C;H\;A=EAVWV=HCW9<`VAeHA\XBfTGSCH88>8:ih;m;CVWg;8<Ik87EHWW;HA;\<VgH8B<VX;HgH8>W9CH<><[H<eV9C\;=<HXC>=[WA;7;\;8<`VAH`>A=<=<;W<VH7[>;m>8:<[;>8<;8\;\:VHCV`7A;H<>8:H[>:[^\;<[;A;V8oq8B=97[\;m;CVWg;8<eV9C\=;m;A;CB>gWH7<H\YV>8>8:WAVW;A<>;=H8\<[;8;>:[XVA[VCX;gHYVA>gWH7<`VAeH<;AA98V```AVgHCHA:;89gX;AV`\e;CC>8:=VAH8BV<[;ACHA:;WH7D;\X9><[;bcOS;HDd>;eWAVW;A<BEU[;7VgX>8;\AVV`HA;HH8\WHm;\=<A;;<I=;Am>7>8:<[;8;e7V8=<CCH77;C;AH<;Hm;ABCHA:;A98V```AVg<[H<H7A;H:;EU[;mVC9g;V`eH<;A\;=7;8\>8:Vm;AS;HDdV=>8:WAVW;A<>;=H8\HCV8:Ue>8hA>m;H8\aV8:=hA>m;>=HCA;H\B[9:;\9A>8:[;HmB=9=<H>8;\\V;8;\=9A`H7;=H<<;8\H8<e><[<[;=;m;AHC7V8=<A97<>V8WAVWV=HC=V``;A;\<V\H<;IA98V``e>CCX;7VgVA=;Eq\;<;8<>V8WV8\HX=VC9<;CBe>CC8V<X;=9``>7>;8<<V7V8<H>8<[H<HgV98<V`eH<;AEHgV98<V`WAVWV=;\7V8=<A97<>V8I<[;A;e>CCX;=>:8>`>7H8<>gWH7<V8<[;WA;mH>C>8:e>8\=>8H8HA;<[;[>:[;=<e>8\=W;;\=>8V9AHA;HEt>8\=\>m;A<;\XB<[;7V8=<A97<>V8e>CC7HAAB=8Ve:;8;AHCCWV=><>8:CHA:;=8Ve\A>`<H779g9CH<>V8=V8S;HDd>;ehA>m;H8\H:H>8=<V9<=>\;eHCC=V`[Vg;=;7V8=<A97<>V8EZ<[;AA;7;8<7V8=<A97<>V8[H=HCA;H\B\;gV8=<AH<;\<[>=X;[Hm>VAEk8`H7<>8<>g;H=X;;8;gWCVB;\<VA;gVm;\A>`<;\=8Ve`AVg<[;=;H\YV>8>8:AVH\=9A`H7;=EEEE<[>=X;>8:e><[V<[H<e>CCX;>8=<>:H<;\XB<[V=;;?7;==>m;=<A97<9A;=EZ8;7H8>gH:>8;e[H<=97[e>8\=7V9C\\;m;8<V`He>C\`>A;VAH\e;CC>8:`>A;>8><>H<;\>8=>\;<[;7VgWC;<;\WCH88;\7V8=<A97<>V8o~€} y79AA;8<CB7HAA>;=HCHA:;mVC9g;V`<AH``>7e[>7[X;7Vg;=:A;H<CB;?H::;AH<;\\9A>8:<[;>=\9;<Vl=<;=SHADfHgW:AV98\H<THAB‚=aHD;H8\S;HDd>;eWAVm>\>8:H8HC<;A8H<>m;<[AV9:rH<>V8HCSHADEq\\><>V8HCCBIU[;U[9gXCV7H<;\V8SAV=W;7<TV98<H>8I79AA;8<CBVe8;\XBl=<;DfC>gX>8:VWWVA<98><>;=`VA;8<[9=>H=<=e[>7[7Vg;=e><[H==V7>H<;\<AH``>7`VAHCHA:;89gX;AVH<H\m;8<9A;E ! "#$ % & ' ## )#* % - . /0'1 2 3 4 5) ! % "#$ % "#$ % 3 , - 7 89 % ! 3; 8CBDE@9 '$* !"#$%&'()*+,,-.+/%012345678899:;<4=>?7@<A BC=DEF5G9DHIH68Q6?@C;cdUeUf_TUeUgSUac_hij[kU]lmnUop|twyu}~u~{wy|z~xrty|szrs€ ‚~ywy|z~ƒus}rw{vszzs}{w{z{~„ €tx}sv~z{ˆty‡tvv~‰wy|zrsƒ‚~ywy|‰wvvwyx}st{s…qrw{rt{†ssyŒ~zs‡‡~‰ywyzrsut{zˆty‡{wyxszrs}srt{{z†sbUTnUbpŽ~Œwy|t‰tŠ„}~ zrs €tx}sv~z{w‚sz~ tx~s{y~z†vsy‡‰svv‰wzrzrsx‹}}syzysw|r†~}r~~‡…ty‡y~‰}s twy‹yxrty|s‡ˆt{‡~zrsx~y‡wzw~y{~„zrsu}~tuuvwxtzw~yw{tvw wzs‡tuu}~txrz~}s‚~ywy|zrs}s twy‡s}{sv~~–tzzrswyzsyzvszzs}{{‹† wzzs‡wyu}sŒw~‹{}s‚~ywy|}xrty|s‡›œšrswyzsy‡s‡z~x}stzstys‰ysw|r†~}r~~‡ˆT_cc_ Sn bnT_TUp¥{ž{ztzs‡wy Švt{zvszzs}Xwzš{ ~}svw–svŠzrtzzrw{wzsvŠtxrwsŒsrw{~}w|wytv|~tv_heUf_TnT¤] ¦piY]¡eUaXzrzŠz~tvsŒsvbnhhUeUTche_^]TbnT¡_TanacUTc‰wzrzrsx‹}}s‰wzr{zt}–vŠ‡w„„s}syz‡sŒsv~u syzutzzs}y{…§¨]ach_eo]eb n¡]cn_To]abUTnUb]Tbcdna_TUad_S b] a_ U…uvŠ twyztwywy|zrstuu}~Œs‡ty‡v~y|€{zty‡wy|V¬]¡eU _c`‡wy|‡~x‹ syz{…‘s{‹uu~}zzrsx‹}}syz €tx}sv~z‚~ywy|…tzŠ~‹}‡sxw{w~y{‰wvvx~ uvŠ‰wzrzrs~‡sty‡zrs•vtyˆt¸·¹º³¹»¼¶·½°¼»½·¾´·»¿ÀÁ¿·½¿°·¿³²¹Â³À½¶¸³¿·¶¶³²¹°³Èzrs‰w{rs{~„zrsysw|r†~}{t„„sxzs‡†Šzrw{}s˜‹s{zt}sx~y}tyzs‡…‹}zw s !"#$%&'()*+,,-.+/%012%23456789:;<5<8=;><?9@>59:68AB CDEFGE6HIFIJ8;A8;:@S?Q3R956676?=8;A8;:@S?BVV7;;7@6564O956676?WA5XXFcd_e\bfbg\hijkl_Zmnf_oh\dZpb_vw\d[_sfax^b\aZy\razZyfaZayad_e\bfbgb\[Zaa_doq\aq_Z]]pft\r[Zc\d[Zcb\ad_t\gbfe_aq_f[rd_so_aZpmZy\raaq_tqZdaofaqtfyrafbd_Zpfacsoq_b\qb€vlrypft^y__bfbu\pu_`h\dZp\dt\[[faa__`_^fgb_`a\^qZ]_`_uy_fbaf[f`ZafbgZb`[Zm_\b_h__pb_fgqy\dq\\`[__afbg`rdfbgaq_hƒqf^f^Z`\b_`_Zpsfax^oqZaaq_ƒ\q_d_p\a^\haqfbg^qZ]]_b_`fbaq__q_tmqZ]]_b_`q_d_sb\\b_oZb_]_\]p_„oZbaf^y\aq_d^\[_v[_f^sfhZ]]d\u_`saq_bZard_\haq !"#$%&'$()**+, --.%/#$*!#$&!&%+012 . !"##$%%&'("#)*+,,-.+/"01232456789:;<==>?@A68BBC7B:D EB5FE6A>GFH=RUJRUCBSVO4JBP57QRST@RUJRUCBSVDFOWQ655X5V@RUJRUCBSVO4WQ655X5V@RUJRUCBSVDFOV86QQ@RUJRUSVDFO:7R567@RUJRUCBSVO4:7R567@RUJRUCBSVDFOYS65TQ6576UJRS@RUJRUCBSVO4YS65TQ6576UJRS@RJRUCBSVO4T86ZRQJB5@RUJRUCBSVDFO7AB95VQ95[@RUJRUCBSVO47AB95VQ95[@RUJRUCBSVDFO:XVRQ@RUBSVDFO\\SBP5@RUJRUCBSVO4\\SBP5@RUJRUCBSVDE6ABSF]Q655X5V^B::XUUXB565[NBP5_B6S[BYNS9UJRRUFAB986aRX5AB9SQ6W6SRZB5X5VSRb9RUJB5J8RSR:6X5X5V?c67SRU6JJ8XUQB76JXB56UU9\:XJJR[\8XUWSBWRSJAXUJB\R[RaRQBWR[XU7RSJ6X5QAX5RaXJ6\QRF65[5BWSBJRUJ86U\RR5S6XUR[JBXJ\RX5V[RPXJ8J8RZB5X5VBYU9SSB95[X5VWSBWRSJXRUFZB5R[YBSUX5VQRY6:XQA8B:RUB5B5Re67SRQBJUCf9UJJ8RNBP5_B6S[aBJR[9565X:B9UQAJB[R5AJ8RSRZB5X5VSRb9RUJJBOgOhP8X78PB9Q[6QQBP6aRSABYWSBWRSJXRUiCjPB9Q[QXTRJBRkWSRUU:A[RUXSRJB86aRAB9lmnopqlrmstusvmonuwqormuxunoFUK6U\RR55BO^865VRX5^B5[XJXB5UOF6SRb9XSR:R5JYBSSRZB5X5VX5J8XU76URFUX57RJ8R9565X:B9UWRS86WU:BSRX:WBSJ65JFXUJ86JB57R6SRZB5X5VJBJ8RSRb9RUJR[[RUXV56JXB5XUVS65JR[FJ8RSRXU8X\XJESCN8RXUYSB:6QJRSX5V8XU79SSR5JQAWSBWBUR[U9\[XaXUXB5WQ65JBB5RJ86JW67TUX58B:RUXCN8XU7B57RS5U:R:BSRF6UBP5RSBYJ8RWSBWRSJA67SBUUJ8RUJSRRJYSB:J8R95[RaRQBWR[Q65[iFJ86565AJ8X5VRQURCjJ86U\RR5:ARkWRSXR57R[9SX5VJ8RUR:65A:B5J8UUX57RESCN8RXUW9S7ESCN8RXU765{J\RSRQXR[9WB5JBTRRW8XUPBS[PXJ8SRUWR7JJB8BP8R9QJX:6JRQAPXQQJSAJB[RaRQBB9Q[XJ\RFVXaR5J86J|6\XJ6JYBS|9:65XJA86UXJUWQ6JRY9QQBYBJ8RSB\QXV6JXB5UFJB86aRJ8XUO[R6QO8RXU86aRR5JRSR[X5JBOY6QQJ8SB9V8OFJ8R5VXaX5VJ8RWSBWRSJABP5RSJ8RSXV8JJBW67TX5aRSAU:6J8RXUU9RJ86JESCN8RXU86UY6XQR[JBX:6VX5R6[XYYRSR5JUBSJBY[RaRQBW:R5JWQ65J86J:XV8J~9UJBSUFP8BAB986aR6QSR6[AURR56SR[R6[URJ6V6X5UJ65A8XV8e[R5UXJAWQ65CdBSRk6:WQRFP8A57SRU6UB5Re67SRQBJUF\9J6QQBPJ8R\9XQ[X5VBY[9WQRkRUFR678B5B5Re67SRQBJU}N86JUBSJBYWQ67J9S6QYBBJWSX5JBYJ8R5RP8B:RU6J6\B9JJ8RU6:RUXZR6U6Q6SVRUX5VQReY6:XQA8B:RF\9JPB9Q[XJUF65[QXTRQA6J6UQXV8JQAQBPRS7BUJJ865JPBU:6QQUX5VQReY6:XQA8B:RUCNB:RFJ8XUPB9Q[TRRWJ8RU6:R6UJ8RA6SR5BPF\9JPB9Q[6QUBURSaRJBWSB[97RO:BSR6YYBS[6\QRO8B9UX5VCU6QUJ65[U5BPFj9SVRAB9JB[R5AJ8RSRZB5X5V6WWQX76JXB5CzSXaR !"#$%"#"&%'()**+,)-./0&!123456478594:46;<=>5?@;4<A75@B CD6EF;GHIEJK8A59:S2:>;<<=T8?T8A59:BES@7T6;7=T8?T8A59:S2@7T6;7=T8?T8A59:BES7G5D6:<D6U=T8?T8A59:T8?T8A59:BESV9;6W<;67;8?T9=T8?T8A59:S2V9;6W<;67;8?T9=T8?T8A59:BESW>;XT<?56=T8?T8A59:S?T8A59:BES@4:T<=T8?T8A59:S2@4:T<=T8?T8A59:BES3395Y6=T8?T8A59:S23395Y6=T8?T8A59:BET8A59:S2Z<;6646:=T8?T8A59:B567T;:;46]547T@G5ZZ584?456?5;<<5Y46:;6GUT]T<5Z@T6?5?>T9?>;6?>T56T>5@T^;79T;8?>R>T9T>;86\?3TT6;6G7>;6:T85V756U4?4568A_`_aT74?4XT68;9T46;6DZ95;95]T965?56<G?>483D?5?>T99TX5646:9TbDT8?8;8YT<<AT85@T56TY;6?8?59TU5?>TZ<;68?>;?;9T;<9T;UG46Z<;7TAc>T65D9>5D8TY;83D4<?4?Y;83958ZT74;<V;]598V95@;6G56TAcTW6TY?>;?:546:46;6U>;UZ<;66TU;7759U46:<GT]T6W65Y46T35UGY5D<UZD?DZ>5D8T8;79588?>T8?9TT?AcTW6TY?>TX5646:;6U>;U65Z953<T@Y4?>4?A5Y6T95VMILZT;W]4TY>;]T@59TX5646:94:>?83T7;D8T>T48;dUT]T<5ZT9eE;6UYT;9Td74?4XX5646:3T?>T8;@TV5935?>5948?>T9T85@T?>46:T<8T:546:563T>46U?>T87T6T8?>;??>Td74?4XG6;@T?5?>T<48?5VZT5Z<T?>;?;9Td879;?7>46:?>T498>T;U8eY56UT946:>5Y?>487;63T6TV4?;6T9e]T<5ZT9W65YY>;??>TX5646:Y;83TV59T?>TGT]T635D:>??>48Z95ZT9?GfE59;8[\]T8;4U;6U@?\89T;<<G:546:563T>46U?>T87T6T8fW494]T4Q>56T !"#$%&'!()*+,-../0-1!#!2#3456786879:;<=>?6;5@AB?C D7EFG6HIJFKLK7<;:HSETE5BU?E<:Q4P56<<;<>=E9:E9@B8>CF>V655=E9:E9@B8>FG68;ERE<6A4?AE<6A=E9:E9@B8>CE9:E9@B8>FYY8BZ<=E9:E9@B8>F?;>E5=E9:E9@B8>FXV6[E5:B<=E9:E9@B8>FAHB7<>57<\=E9:E9@B8>E85E::E86YB7::VE8E[B<;<>8E]7E9:WB8^_MPE6X`;EZ@E\:BZ8;:E6>6;<:B6\\8E9965E::E89B?E5BA65A;:;[E<98EAE;TE\HE9:E8\6HW8B?G8@b?E89B<W8B?BW:VEd:@`86;<`655EH@<B7<A;<>6<7UAB?;<>?EE:;<>6YB7:6\;WWE8E<:c6Y;:6:U8BeEA:FVE9:6:E9fc6Y;:6:;97<\E8AB<:8:RBHB:Eh7<@68@DVB9EIK5B:9\B<B:Ej;9:k@8E]7E9:9VB75\W6;5B<;:9BZ<f?E8;:9glB856AX:VE8EBWm@DBB<AE6>6;<9:6:E:VEBYT;B79@@@@@@@@@@@@@@;<AB<\;:;B<9;<:VE6WWEA:E\68E69@9VB75\YE\E<;E\F69Z696U8ET;B798E]7E9:W8B?:VE96?E\ETE5BUE8WB8:VE96?EU68AE5@ !"#$$%&#'()*+,-./012345667869: ;6<=;43>1=1?F2G-@G-76/E:=98G<48,98G<482G-@G-76/E:=../6H<,../6H<2G-@G-76/E:=I54JGF@6<@G-76/E:=9KEGF,9KEGF2G-@G-76/E:=L/4<IF4<84-@G/,L/4<IF4<84-@G/2G-@G-76/E:=836M<EFM<NG-@G-76/E:=OF4<<K<E,OF4<<K<E2G-@G-76/E:UTVTW\ZY]^_``^UabQ\\c\deXffc^^cX\Uc`j`[`QY`kQjc\d_XdX_kY]_kc^lYXh`^^QdQc\mZkc^_cf`_k`n`j`bXl`Yc^c\jXbjc\doQic_Q_pXYo]fQ\c_R_X_YR_XhX\jc\h`Q\`[iXY`qX\c\dmoQic_Q_c^QdXXnXYdQ\cqQ_cX\UkX[`j`YUkX[hQ\oQic_Q_i`hX\^cn`Y`nQhXrQllbchQ\_cp_k`RQY`\X_Q\X[\`YXp_k`lYXl`Y_Zk`n`j`bXl`YhQ\Xj`YnX]ib`kc^lYXpc_^cpk`hQ\d`__k`Y`qX\c\dQllYXj`nUQ\n[kQ_d]QYQ\_``c^_k`Y`_kQ_k`c^k`bn_X[kQ_k`n`j`bXl`Yt^_Y]`hX\h`Y\c^_XlQY_\`Y[c_koQic_Q_[kRnX`^\t_k`u]^_^`bbX\`QhY`bX_^Q_QY`n]h`nlYch`_XoQic_Q_sZk`Y`^_cbbkQj\nc_cX\^UQ\n_kc^c^QhQ^`Xp^lX_Y`qX\c\dmvj`YR_kc\d^]YYX]\nc\d_kc^lYXl`Y_Rc^SkX]^`l`YQhY`mg[X]bnbcx`_XY`c_`YQ_`fRXiu`h_cX\^_X_k`Y`qX\c\dm ‚|ƒ‚~|}„…†|‡‡|ƒ‚ˆ‰ƒ€ˆz}„Š|~{‹…‚‰‡…~zƒ|}ƒŒX]dk_Q\ni]cb_X\X]YlYXl`Y_Rx\X[c\d_k`qX\c\dpXYŽ Wa`Qxjc`[[Q^vrS fc\SQhY`bX_^‘mgpY`qX\`n_kc^[cbbnYQd`X]Y\`cdkiXYkXXnQ\nn`jQb]`^]YYX]\nc\dlYXl`Y_c`^’llYXj`neXflY`k`\^cj`abQ\ _k`n`j`bXl`YQ^xc\dpXYY`qX\c\d[Q^X\_kc^hXffc__``‘[Q^QllYXj`nQ\n_k`lYXl`Y_R\`nvrS`j`bXl`Yc^fQ•cfcqc\d_k`\]fi`YXpbX_^_XfQ•cfcq`lYXpc_^mZk`n`j`bXl`Y^_Q\n^_XlYXpc_UQ__k`hX^_Xp`j`YRX\`c]\nc\d`kQj`i``\—whkQ\d`c\hX\nc_cX\^m`fQuXYhX\h`Y\^c\–QY`Q^˜ZYQppchrZk`\]fi`YXpj`kchb`^_kQ_]^`a`Qx™c`[Q\nQY`_YQj`bc\dQ_kcdkYQ_`^Xp^l``nU_k`Y`QY`ibc\nhXY\`Y^RXQYX]\nUQ\nQ\`•c^_c\d]\hX\j`\_cX\Qbc\_`Y^`h_cX\mv\jcYX\f`\_Qbr `[Q_hk_k`iXihQ_^hXf`nX[\pYXfaYX^l`h_PX]\_Qc\_X_k`pc`bn_Xd`__k`cYnc\\`Y^Q\niYc\d]l_k`fX]\_Qc\U_k`n``YQ\n`bx]^`_kc^pc`bnR`QYYX]\nQ^QhXYYcnXYUpXYdYQqc\dUQ\npXYkQjc\d_k`cYiQic`^m c_lYXlX^`nn`j`bXlf`\_Qhh`^^[X]bni`kcdkbRY`^_Ych_`ncp\X\r`•c^_`\_m Q_`Y^k`nr k`\[`kQj`k`QjRYQc\^[`kQj`^``\_k`[cn_kXpš`jX\šYcj`kQj`^k``_^Xp[Q_`Y[c_kYcllb`^dXc\hQ\t_cfQdc\`[kQ_[X]bnkQll`\_X_k`kXf`^i`bX[_kc^lYXlX^Qb[c_kQbb_k`kQYn^hQl`QiXj`_k`fpcb_`Yc\df]hk_X[QYn_k`cY`•c^_c\dkXf`^m›cY`r `QY`Qbb[`bbQ[QY`Xp`•_Y`f`bRkcdkpcY`nQ\d`YQ\nkX[kcdkpcY`nQ\d`YUkcdk[c\n^UQ\nkcdkn`\^c_RkX]fc•mƒš|~žz~ Ÿ|{‡~ˆ}ƒ‰ ¡…z}Xp_k`„‹‰ ‰}„‡~‰}€‰‡…ƒc^¢£QbQ\h`nQ\nfQ\Qd`ndYX[_k_kQ_`\kQ\h`^“]Qbc_RXpbcp`UlY`^`Yj`^bXhQbhkQYQh_`YUhX\^QbY`^X]Yh`^Q\n[cbnbcp`kQic_Q_m¤]_]Y`¥Q\n¦^`PQl_kQ_c^c\lbQh`Qb^XkQ^_kc^lYXl`Y_Rcn`\_cpc`nQ^^]i]YiQ\`^_Q_`£—v”mT£—v”mTZk`ZX[\Q\neX]\_R`\hX]YQd`_k`hX\^`YjQ_cX\Q\nlYX_`h_cX\XphX\\`h_`n[cbnbcp`kQic_Q_^Q\nnXY£v”mTZk`ZX[\Q\neX]\_RlYXjcn`QllYXlYcQ_`_YQ\^c_cX\i`_[``\jQYRc\dc\_`\^c_RXp]^`^Q\n^hQb`^Xpn`j`bXlf`cq`cflQh_^i`_[``\QnuQh`\_n`j`bXlf`\_^m !"##$%"&&'(')*+,,-./.01234566789/:;<039= >?:@A/15@BCM<3?8@90L./07LMELM<3?8@NN?3O.7LMELM<3?8@P:?N1Q/RL;E3.-SK/RL;E3.7LMELM<3?8=@9:8L;7LLMELM<3?8@013U.8;U.V7LMELM<3?8@W;/..:.87LMELM<3?80L/8/:.E3VL.1EKL/WW;:0/E:3.T3?YZDIL/S[:LO<JK:M/WW;:0/E:3.:M2UME/.3EKL?/EEL9WEE30:?0.L:8KN3?K33V<JK:M/WW;:0/E:3.O/MVL.:LVW?L[:3UM;1@/.V/WW?3W?:/EL;1N1I;/..:.8/.VEKLJ3?QU9/.:E1W?3W3M/;:MM:9W;1/.3EKL?/EEL9WEN1EKLVL[L;3WL?E3MO/1EKLI;/..L?M/.V\3/?VV9LLE:.8OKL.Q/N:E/EO/M/EEL.V:.8OLOL?LE3;VEK/E:EO3U;VE/SL4C1L/?ME3[LEEKLZ^;3EM^VN1EKLVL[L;3WL?<JL.1L/?M@3N[:3UM;1EKL.LLVT3?EK/E9/.1Q/N:E/EK39LM:M.3E.LLVLV3?[L;3WL?WU?0K/MLVEKLW?3WL?E1KLS.LOEKLR3.:.8<JKL.L:8KN3?K33VO3U;VNLK/WW1E3K/[LULO:EK3.L/0?L;3EM@OK:0K:M/WW?3W?:/EL<JK:M/?L/O3U;VNLM3?L;1K/?9LVN1/R3.:.80K/.83U;VNLV/.8L?3UM<_:;V;:TLO3U;VNLVL/V3.EKL?3/V<J?/TT:0T3?L[L?13.LL;MLO3U;VNL/NU?L/S[:LO@/.V0L?E/:.;1M0K33;NUMLMO3U;VTLL;U.M/TL<E313U?03.ME:EUL.EM@.3EEKLVL[L;3WL?<_L@/ME/`W/1L?M@VLML?[LE3K/[L3U?[3:0LMKL/?V<aL !"#$%&'()*+,-./0012/3''4'567889:;<;=>?@AB::C=D?=>EF;GBFH IJKLM>NOLPQPBEFBE;DXZV9FDWG=:BXYCBEFBE;DXZHLV[:>GG\GZCBEFBE;DXZV9[:>GG\GZCBEFBE;DXZHLVZJ>::CBEFBEXZHLV]X>GY:>G=>EFBXCBEFBE;DXZV9]X>GY:>G=>EFBXCBEFBE;DXZHLVYJ>^B:FDGCBEFBE;DXZV9YJ>^B:FDGE;DXZV9AAXDWGCBEFBE;DXZHLV?=BG>=CBEFBE;DXZV9?=BG>=CBEFBE;DXZHLV?\ZB:CBEFBE;DXZVDXZHLV=NDKGZ:KG_CBEFBE;DXZV9=NDKGZ:KG_CBEFBE;DXZHcd2bha/0i/jbklmmna/ol/0bbp1bbp/q1nha1drsal0b//0thb/121cdbhlra/uhdcd2a/ol/0bkhavwxy/1z{c/g|act/}f/gphmmn0liihab1dr11b1ma/1rnp1t/~//d0l~.cbb/rbhbp/bhgd10zcd2hlahkkcjc1m0bhliphnpc2pr/d0cbnphl0cd2}2he.1dna/0cr/db0hk0b/0y1azghaz/rp1arbhia/0/dbbhbp/q1nha1bchd1m/ej10/m1g1dri/ap1i0.h0bc.ihab1dbmnejh..ldcbn0/dbc./0bkhay/1z{c/g|act/}€hnklmmnehd /ib/.~/a‚ve‚ƒ‚„ebp/q1nha1dhb/rbhr/dnbp/a/ol/0b}sp/ia/0/db1bchd1drm/bb/a00l~.cbb/rg/a/b0k/mbp/1ar10bp/ld1dc.hl0thb/j10bg10cdk1thahkbp/jh..ldcb0zkha1dhthb/bha/uhd/vwxy/1z{c/g|act/0cdj/bp/a/1a/dhjp1aa1db0ljp1a/ol/0b}†hbpcd2p10jp1d2/r~/bg//dbp/d1drdhg1drl/0bbp1bbp/jlaa/dbq1nha1drsal0b//0liphmrbp/r/jc0chd~nbp/cahanhlabc./1drjhd0cr/a1bchd1drg/mhhzkhag1arbh1bb/drcd2bp/.f/1iia/jc1b/bp1bnhlmht/1dr0liihabbpc0bhgd10.ljp10g/rh}~/mmm/bb/ ! " # " $ % % $ ! " ! # '$ " * & ,. /0 + !"#$%&'()*+,-./0012/3''4'567889:;<;=>?@AB::C=D?=>EF;GBFH IJKLM>NOLPQPBEFBE;DXZV9FDWG=:BXYCBEFBE;DXZHLV[:>GG\GZCBEFBE;DXZV9[:>GG\GZCBEFBE;DXZHLVZJ>::CBEFBEXZHLV]X>GY:>G=>EFBXCBEFBE;DXZV9]X>GY:>G=>EFBXCBEFBE;DXZHLVYJ>^B:FDGCBEFBE;DXZV9YJ>^B:FDGE;DXZV9AAXDWGCBEFBE;DXZHLV?=BG>=CBEFBE;DXZV9?=BG>=CBEFBE;DXZHLV?\ZB:CBEFBE;DXZVDXZHLV=NDKGZ:KG_CBEFBE;DXZV9=NDKGZ:KG_CBEFBE;DXZHcd2bha/0i/jbklmmna/ol/0bbp1bbp/q1nha1drsal0b//0thb/121cdbhlra/uhdcd2a/ol/0bkhavwxy/1z{c/g|act/}f/gphmmn0liihab1dr11b1ma/1rnp1t/~//d0l~.cbb/rbhbp/bhgd10zcd2hlahkkcjc1m0bhliphnpc2pr/d0cbnphl0cd2}2he.1dna/0cr/db0hk0b/0y1azghaz/rp1arbhia/0/dbbhbp/q1nha1bchd1m/ej10/m1g1dri/ap1i0.h0bc.ihab1dbmnejh..ldcbn0/dbc./0bkhay/1z{c/g|act/}€hnklmmnehd /ib/.~/a‚ve‚ƒ‚„ebp/q1nha1dhb/rbhr/dnbp/a/ol/0b}sp/ia/0/db1bchd1drm/bb/a00l~.cbb/rg/a/b0k/mbp/1ar10bp/ld1dc.hl0thb/j10bg10cdk1thahkbp/jh..ldcb0zkha1dhthb/bha/uhd/vwxy/1z{c/g|act/0cdj/bp/a/1a/dhjp1aa1db0ljp1a/ol/0b}†hbpcd2p10jp1d2/r~/bg//dbp/d1drdhg1drl/0bbp1bbp/jlaa/dbq1nha1drsal0b//0liphmrbp/r/jc0chd~nbp/cahanhlabc./1drjhd0cr/a1bchd1drg/mhhzkhag1arbh1bb/drcd2bp/.f/1iia/jc1b/bp1bnhlmht/1dr0liihabbpc0bhgd10.ljp10g/rh}~/mmm/bb/ May 6, 2025 LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO 685 PEAK VIEW REZONING Dear Planning Commission and Town Board, I’m wri�ng to help the Commission and Town 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 1,750+ 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 To summarize, what do we have? On one side we have one developer who, incidentally, 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 !"## $$ %&'(%)*+,- './011230& #456789:;<=>?@A<B;<CD9E@>9F GH>IJCKLIMNMD9>DEB?WIWXCUUA>D9>DEB?WI;<>@C<A>D9>DEB?WIY?C@=UC@<CD9>?A>D9>DEB?WI=XCZ>U9B@A>D9>DEB?WD9>DEB?WI;VW>UA>D9>DEB?WI\\?B]@A>D9>DEB?Wghijkh`al`jlem`jjnjophqqnccnhjrtthcndnhjdhdu_a_vhjnjoa_wx_cd`dyz{e_`f|n_i}_wx_cddha_vhj_dua__`€a_ci`cxj`jnqhxcm l_jn_l‚ du_‚h`alm`cd _`a}_u`_‚__jjh„€u`jo_cnj€hjlndnhjcnjdu_`a_`c`……_€d_lr†_ldhl__mhtnjodu`d`a_``cvhj_lrdu`dncrb‡ˆrhj_uhxc_t_a`€a_}…hxa`€a_t`a€_mihxml‚_cthdvhjnjoiun€uncnmm_o`mxjl_aphmha`lhm`i}nmmh…du_dhtdn_ah… hxahijhao`jnv`dnhj`m€u`adrdu_€ndnv_jcŠe‰b‹ƒb^bŒ gŽsƒ b ‘bƒgg’ b“’Œb”œ›ª™«¬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`>/1>3;.U3O/33O>1>42/5/71>>8U>N>.;A>1?R033O>A/134>23;3O>/71>>8>53S4..5;32O/1>1>23>U45A01:O/2457;5>;P3O>.;32P;18L2>.Pb`;0.Ua3_/AA.4:/53b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`aC0Z<@1@6<[R3F:;GGY0\<1;0<[GY0;1G1Z0@O8@2\<G08681@OGGY1OC0Z<@1@6bC1\0 !"##$%"&&'(')*+,,-./.01234566789/:;<039= >?:@A/?BC@BDNFMN<3?8@9:8M;7MNFMN<3?8@013O.8;O.P7MNFMN<3?8@QR;/.0/NFM?7MNFMN<3?8Q-R;/.0/NFM?7MNFMN<3MN<3?8N@VV?3W.7MNFMN<3?8@90M.M07MNFMN<3?8@Q8T/;;7MNFMN<3?8Q-8T/;;7MNFMN<3?8=313O3.0M/8/:.F3MYL?MNN913LL3N:F:3.F3FTM?MZU3.:.83R[CEJM/S\:MW<]3W9/.1F:9MN3WMPF303.F:.OMF3L?MNNFTMK3W.R3?T:8TM?PM.N:F13R/.M:8TV3?T33PFT/FT/N3.M/0?ML/?0M?MNNR3?W/?PO.F:;FTMK3W.?M;M.FN^<`?3W.aNLM?N3./;VM;:MRNFT/FMbM?1U3.:.8?McOMNFVM/OFT3?:UMP@FT/F:N.3FWT/FFTMF/YL/1M?N3O;P?M0ONMT:9NM;RR?39/.1b3FM3.FTMF3L:0<eMLO?0T/NMP3O?T39MNW:FTFTMMYL;:0:FO.PM?NT33PW3O;PVM03.N:NFM.F<KTM?M:N.30T/.8M:.03.P:F:3.@L;M/NMNF3LFTMNLM0O;/F:3.FT/FFTM?M]/V:F/FT/N/;?M/P19MFW:FTFTM.M:8TV3?T33P/.P0;M/?;1O.PM?NF33PFTML/NN:3.3RT39M3W.MN0?1NF/;0;M/?/FFTM9MMF:.8<fM9M9VM?@TM/;N3N/:P:FW3O;PF/SM4D1M/?NF3R:.P/LL?3L?:/FMMN<KTM/PP:F:3.3RghiaNF3FTML?32M0F:N039L;MFM;1:./LL?3L?:/FM<]/V:F/FR3?]O9/.:F1:N:.b3;/..:.8F38?MM.;:8TFFTML?32M0F<i./00MLF/V;M<8?MMP:N.3F/./00MLF/V;Mb/;:P/F:3.R3?FT:NU3.:.8?McOMNF<KTM3.;1N3;OF:3.:NF3/;;3WFTML?33.M/0?ML?3LM?F:MN/N0O??M.F;1U3.MP<k3MY0MLF:3.<.01_O?F:NN Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> (no subject) 1 message Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 8:30 PM To: planning@estes.org To the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees, and Planning Commission members, My name is Terry Rustin. I reside at 555B Devon Drive in Estes Park. I oppose the application to rezone 4.47 acres at 685 Peak View, Parcel ID# 2531313001, “Coyote Run Phase II,” from E-1 to R The property is currently zoned for one dwelling per acre. The developer is seeking a rezoning of the property to permit denser housing. The application by this same developer to rezone 7.62 acres at 685 Peak View was denied a few months ago by the Trustees. The developer subsequently complied and has begun or completed the construction of one dwelling on each of three acres. The remaining 4.47 acres at 685 Peak View are now completely surrounded by houses on one-acre parcels. Therefore, the standard lot size in the area of the property in question is one acre. Building one house per acre on the 4.47 acres would conform to the neighborhood standards. Denser development would not. I therefore oppose changing the zoning of this area. (signed) 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 Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> 695 Peakview 1 message Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:41 AM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Tugs at the heartstrings to have Habitat for Humanity involved, and we have seen it will be a nice looking project. This is not elitism. This parcel was zoned low density residential housing. Yes, some higher density nearby, but that existed when it was re- zoned as it is. NO CHANGE OF CONDITIONS since that zoning was adopted. That still makes it illegal spot zoning. The decision made last time stands. A new development plan does not change it.. it is re-zoning. And the 1750 who signed the petition still stands (and as such, you need more than a simple majority). Rebecca Urquhart Estes Park CO March 8, 2025 Dear Mayor, Trustees, and Planning Commissioners, I am writing to express my concerns and strong opposition to the current rezoning request under consideration for the Coyote Ridge Subdivision – Phase 2 at 685 Peak View. I am so perplexed with the inconsistencies not only of the current rezoning request but the Contract and Concept Plan and what is not clear (and/or lack of information) in this application which proposes red ﬂags. These inconsistencies raise concerns about the validity and reliability of the data being presented to support the rezoning. To ensure the integrity of the process and to foster trust within our community, I propose that the rezoning request be deemed null and void if the associated contract and all relevant documentation (details) are not made accessible to the public before the planning meetings. Note: Unfortunately, the neighboring landowners and community attendees were denied transparent access to view the full extent of the Contract (Concept Plan) between CMS/H.F.H. when requested at the Jan. 11, 2025, neighborhood meeting. We were only provided the basics, and even when asked for a copy the Contract to be reviewed by attendees, Mr. Emerson replied with a NO. It is crucial that all rezoning initiatives are conducted with utmost transparency. This means that every detail, including contracts and agreements, should be made accessible to the entire community and the Town Board before any discussions take place with the Planning Commissioners and the Town Board. Transparency is vital for the following reasons: 1. Community Engagement: It allows community members to understand the implications of the rezoning and to voice their opinions. 2. Informed Decision-Making: The Town Board can make better-informed decisions when all relevant information is available and debated openly. 3. Trust Building: Transparency fosters a sense of trust between residents and local government, ensuring that all stakeholders feel included in the decision-making process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Christy Jacobs Estes Park Resident !"##$%"&'(')*+,-+./00,/12342567 839:;+<=>:=>+I@+I451HE)F0/GG,GH.+I@+I451H7TUVTNSOMWORROTXNXOMNONYPRSOROTPZSP[OMXMWLN\]^_PL`aXPKbPPdOfgPMNdVLMZRLTTXOMLNPdVTNLNPZNYPULMVhOURPddXMWSPLTOMTKYVNYXTSPWMX[LMNNYLNPYLePTXWMPZLRPNXNXOMORROTXMWnopqrscoJotOuvwJx_nqvJyz{nqPKXTYPTOuNYPTPYgMZSPZTLMZNYOTPUOTNLuuPhNPZ|NYPLZ}LhPMNRSORPSNVOKSX[OM xLUTgMWtLdLQVTULSNRYOMP™š›˜•œ› +1,¡5G:š/6I9GH¢/0/£ŸI6/1@F35G+§ƒˆ¨„©ˆƒª© !"#$%&'($)*+,-.//01.2$3(456789:;<=<7>8?@AB<67=C9D?EF?<=G H<IJK<LMNJA@>F87TJU5<?65B<>=<>F87TJUDT<9B<>=<>F87TJ5V8W?T9W?IB<>=<>F87TJX76?E96?56>=<7B<>=<>F87TJ<>F87TJLL78Z?B<>=<>F87TJ;96??D?TB<>=<>F87TQ^_`S8Z?a867IJ?>=78?T8;;8>D=D8?=8=C<7<cW<>==87<Y8?<d657<>6=efOQ<6EgD<ZX78U8?<657<;675<9>=8M8W67<6Z67<6;7<iD8W>7<cW<>=X877<Y8?D?T=CD>;78;<7=VZ6>W?6?DU8W>9VI<?D<ILV=C<;7<iD8<??85C6?T<D?58?ID=D8?>D?5<=C6=W?6?DU8W>9VI<?D<II<5D>D8?FjC6?T<8X;67=?<7>CD;D?;78I8<>?8=58?>=D=W=<65C6?T<8X58?ID=D8?FX=C<?<<IX876?I>W;;87=6XX87I6L9<6?IZ87EX875<C8W>D?TF^XX87I6L9<C8W>D?TD>?8=6?D>>W<FSC<?<Z>D>7<;9<=<ZD=CU8W?=6D?=8Z?>6?IW7L6?5D=D<>D?j89876I8T76;;9D?TZD=C=C6=i<7VD?T58?=D?W<>=8<>5696=<6?IZD9958?=D?W<=8<>5696=<FjC6?TD?T<kD>=D?TY8?D?T8X>U699;675<9><i<769U87<>D?T9<X6UD9VC8U<>lZCD5CU6V87U6V?8=7<U6D?6XX87I6L9<mD>?8=T8D?T=8>89i<58>=8XLWD9ID?T6?I8Z?D?TC8U<>X87=C<Z87ED?T596>>F_<Y8?D?T8?9V><7i<>=8ID>7W;=<>=6LI>FSC<58>=8X7<Y8?D?T=8ID>7W;=D8?8XZ<99<>=6L9D>C<I?<DTCL87C88I>I8<>?8=><<U=8L<Z8?WUL<78X6XX87I6L9<>D?T9<X6UD9VC8U<>T6D?<IFb>=C<T869=86IIC8W><>D?<i<7Vi656?=;67_`nHD99=C6=<i<?>6=D>XV=C<?<<Inqup{z.‚oq !"#$%&'()*+,-./0%1&22345667859*):/;<=>?=@?>ABACD==EF=GH IJ>KL>MNOKPQP[>\]>=^G>YS;^]CYYZY_B>`S>`E=a_HKb_DC]]B>`S>`E=a_b;_DC]]B>`S>`E=a_HKbGF>YCFB>`S>`E=a`E=a_HKbGZ_>]B>`S>`E=a_b;GZ_>]B>`S>`E=a_HKbFA=JY_]JY?B>`S>`E=a_b;FA=JY_]JY?B>`S>`E=B>`S>`E=a_b;caCYd]CYFC`S>aB>`S>`E=a_HKbdDCe>]S=YB>`S>`E=a_b;dDCe>]S=YB>`S>`E=a_HK`E=a_b;MMa=@YB>`S>`E=a_HPQPRCA=aCY?h=Ca?=cIaJ`S>>`YS=i>e=YZY_=ckORV>CdlZ>@[aZ\>mX=A=S>iJYVDC`>nn=cSDZ`]>SS>aZ`S=a>`SCS>GA=^^=`ZSZ=YS=SD>a>e=YZY_=copqrstuvwsxyzw{smX=A=S>iJYVDS=Y]Aa>GCZY`MJSZ`Y=@`Sa>Y_SD>Y>?MASD>SCFSZFJ`>?MASD>|^^]ZFCYSS=ZYF]J?>C`CYC``=F=a_CYZeCSZ=YKSDCSn=YF>M>]Z>\>?S=M>D=Y=aCM]>CY?^Ja`JZY_CY=M]>FCJ`>KC`@>]]C`SD>ZY\=ad}=J`ZY_|JSD=aZSAKc=aSD>^Ja^=`>=cGC`dZY_DZ`F=Y`Z`S>YSKJY?>a]AZY_G=SZ\>K=c^a=cZS>>aZY_=SD>a`ELJaSD>aG=a>KSD>^a=MCM]>MZC`=cCIaJ`S>>KFDCa_>?@ZSDZG^CaSZC]]AF=Y`Z?>aZY_GCSS>a`Ca?K`JFDC`SDZ`C^^]ZFCSZ=YKZYFa>C`>`GAa>`=]\>CY?`J^^=aS`GAF=YF]J`Z=YSDCSSDZ`C^^]ZFCS>aCSZ=Y=ci>e=YZY_|^^]ZFCSZ=Y`Ca>F=Y`Z?>a>?~JC`Z€<J?ZFZC] Kn@=J]?^=ZYS=JSSDCSSD>a>J>`ORV>CdlZ>@[aZ\>CY?SD>aCSZ=YC]><J`SZcAZY_`CZ?a>J>`SDC\>C]a>C?AM>>YC?<J?ZFCS>?CY?S>YZ>?MACI=@Yh=Ca?\=S>=cU€Q=YPk‚>^S>GM>aPQPƒE‚ZYF>SDZ`?>YZC]KSD>a>DC\>M>>YY=SD>Ca>C`Ccc>FS>? K@DZFDCa>^DA`ZFC]FDCY_>`S=SD>ZGG>?ZCS>]A`Jaa=JY?ZY_^CaF>]`EnY^=ZYSJaa>YS?>\>]=^G>YS=c=Y>CFa>]=S`ZY~VDC`>N KZYCFF=a?CYF>CY?F=Y`Z`S>YS@ZSDSD>>…Z`SZY_eaS`SD>F=YF]J`Z=YSDCSY=FDCY_>`ZYF=Y?ZSZ=Y`DC\>=FFJaa>?E`C_>=cSD>^DaC`>~FDCY_>ZYFZaFJG`SCYF> C`<J`SZcZFCSZ=Yc=a?=@Ye=YZY_=cSD>^a=^>aSA@=J]?YC]CSS>G^SS=ZYSa=?JF>CYC]S>aYCS>^CSD@CAc=aa>e=YZY_MACa_JZY_SDCSSD>^CaSZFZ^CSZ=Y=c}C`ZGZ]Ca`JFD=a_CYZeCSZ=YKC`CY|^^]ZFCYS`=G>D=@F=Y`SZSJS>`C~FDCY_>ZYFZaFJG`SCYF> CY?=^=`>?`SCY?Ca?@CaaCYSZY_a>e=YZY_EIDZ`Ca_JG>YSDC`Y=G>aZSEID>a>JZa>G>YSKC`?Z`FJ``>=Y?ZSZ=Y` SDJ`a>Y?>aZY_}CMZSCS„`^CaSZFZ^CSZ=YC`]>_C]]AZaa>]>\CYSES`^a>`>YS>?MAI=@Y‚SCcc<J`SZcAZY_SD>FJaa>YSC^^]ZFCSZ=Yc=aa>e=YZY_Ca>@ZSD=JSG>aZSKC``>\DC\>^=ZYS>?=JSKCY?D>YF>ZYSD>ZYS>a>`S=cMa>\ZSAKn@Z]]Y=Sa>^>CSSD>a>C`=Y`D>a>EZY_@ZSDSD>]>_C]SD>G>KSD>I=@Yh=Ca?`D=J]?C^^]ASD>^aZYFZ^C]=c~`SCa>?>FZ`Z` †]>SSD>?>FYS@ZSDSD>^a>F>?>YS=cSD>=aZ_ZYC]C^^]ZFCSZ=YK?>YASDZ`a>J>`SE=F>>?ZY_KCYAIaJ`S>>SDCSFCYY=S=a@Z]]Y=SZG^CaSZC]]AF=Y`Z?>aSD>C^^]ZFCSZ=Y`D=J]?a>FJ`>DZGD>F=GGJYZSA?>`>a\>`Y=]>``E=ZYS=JSSDCSSD>a>DC`Y=SM>>YC~FDCY_>ZYFZaFJG`SCYF> K>ZSD>aKC`SD>|^^]ZFCYS„`ZYS>YSZ=YDCC…ZGZe>DZ`^a=cZS`@ZSD=JSa>_Ca?S=SD>Y>_CSZ\>ZG^CFS`S=Y>Z_DM=a`K@Z]?]Zc>K=aSD>F=GGJYZSA>C`>?>YASDZ`a>e=YZY_C^^]ZFCSZ=YE>A 2/18/25, 8:59 AM Town of Estes Park Mail - Opposition to Frank Theis's Further Request to Re-Zone his property in 2025 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bfa6edde06&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1824343373282624025&simpl=msg-f:1824343373282624025 1/1 Opposition to Frank Theis's Further Request to Re-Zone his property in 2025 1 message 'MICHELLE DARCY' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 2:56 PM Reply-To: MICHELLE DARCY <mdrc99@aol.com> To: ghall@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, migel@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, bbrown@estes.org, planning@estes.org Dear Estes Park Town Board, I find myself again, writing a letter to all of you in opposition to Frank Theis’ new and creative request to have his property re-zoned. He already had a 7-0 ruling from our Town Board after they considered all of the reasons as to why this should not happen. He exhausted his neighbors in pursuing something that he had no business to pursue. We suffered for months dealing with Frank’s case. It’s now going on 2 years that Frank continues to not accept our Town Board’s vote. We all have personal stories about why we chose to invest in our properties in this area. We KNEW that this neighborhood has primarily 1 acre parcels. Many of us have invested our life savings to live in this community. Frank is already building proper sized homes on 1 acre lots and I am not opposed to this. He has his additional acres to do this. He also is building very big homes which are complimentary to our neighborhood and will reap Frank large profits. To put small houses in this area would take away from the values of each property. There have been NO changes in conditions in our neighborhood. Frank’s property sits on a road that is heavily trafficked by locals and by trades people trying to avoid driving through town. People have slipped off the road in wintery conditions and with an influx of 20 or more families dwelling on that curve, this is a disaster waiting to happen with major traffic congestion and not good planning. Our neighborhood is also ultimately responsible for watching any kind of suspicious activity near and on Prospect Mountain Road due having our water pipes that service our town right at the end of this road. This is not a neighborhood that should even be considering to changing the zoning for that reason as well. When these neighborhoods were being built, you can bet that builders had hindsight and wisdom about keeping our water resources safe. Frank knew when he bought this property that is was 1 house per acre. To boldly purchase this property and to bank his chances that the town would change existing zoning is misleading and disrespectful to full communities that surround his property. Honorable Board, please help us once again. Nothing has changed. Sincerely, Michelle A. D’Arcy, 1421 Prospect Mountain Road 2/18/25, 8:58 AM Town of Estes Park Mail - Re-zoning 685 Peakview https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bfa6edde06&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1824326719318940972&simpl=msg-f:1824326719318940972 1/2 Re-zoning 685 Peakview 1 message 'Patience Ellis' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:31 AM Reply-To: Patience Ellis <pellis50@aol.com> To: ghall@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, migel@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, bbrown@estes.org, planning@estes.org To: Board Trustees and Planning Commission Date: 02/17/2025 Re: Wrong place. Wrong time: Re-zoning application for 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park Our house is located at 1421 Prospect Mountain Road, Estes Park, in the Koral Heights Homeowners’ Association. Our property is located just a few hundred yards northeast of the 685 Peak View Drive parcel that a developer has indicated an interest in having rezoned. With all due respect to the Estes Park Planning Commission and the Estes Park Trustees, the concept of continual re-zoning efforts of 685 Peak View Drive to allow the building of more than 16 habitat single-home units defies credulity. To conclude that somehow this development will benefit (1) the parcel that is home to wildlife and provides critically important runoff qualities, (2) the neighborhoods that surround it, (3) the Estes community more broadly is imprudent at a minimum and perhaps even naïve, and (4) No change in neighborhood housing conditions. Scores of our neighbors have eloquently detailed the multitude of reasons that this rezoning request should be denied, and thus there is no need to repeat all of their concerns with which we associate ourselves. Instead, may I explain my reasons for opposing the re-zoning in four words: Wrong place. Wrong time. Wrong place because of the development proposal’s entirely unacceptable planning, social, and visual impacts. Wrong time because of the insupportable further contribution to climate change such a change will generate, a matter of enormous importance to a community battered by recent horrific fires. In short, the proposed rezoning should be rejected for the above two reasons, to say nothing of the precedent an approval will mean for every neighborhood in town. The surrounding residents have invested so much over decades to strike and maintain a balance between natural history and progress. We have legitimate fire danger that now looms over mountain towns every year. Safety is paramount. Further disrupting the balance could be irreparable. Disrupting the balance robs EVERYONE of what has made Estes Park such a desirable place to live, visit and vacation for decades. We’re not Breckenridge. We’re not Vail. Our wildlife and historical “small mountain town” 2/18/25, 8:58 AM Town of Estes Park Mail - Re-zoning 685 Peakview https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bfa6edde06&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1824326719318940972&simpl=msg-f:1824326719318940972 2/2 charm is our value. Our residential neighborhoods don’t have and don’t warrant sprawling parking lots or 3/4 story buildings that shoot up in the middle of an open meadow to block the mountain views. No one disagrees that the town needs more workforce housing. But this proposal has nothing to do with workforce housing. The developer, with full knowledge of the zoning of a complete area, has attempted to swell his profits on the backs of the local neighbors without an ounce of benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and/or the environment. We respectfully ask you to deny any and all requests for the continual efforts to re-zone 685 Peakview, which attempt to disrupt our successful balance (for profit). We ask you to help protect what makes OUR TOWN of Estes Park one of a kind. Many thanks in advance for hearing mine and all concerns for consideration. Sincerely, Patience Ellis 1421 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, Colorado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a:/:N3.@MBOR/MNHR:N:N/03.W;:0H3W:.HBOBNH<L3b?3HBKO<ZO3THBO\:BT/NU:.8W3O3?ON?MM3OHTRB.O?..:.8W3OB;B0H:3.ISYCB;:B\BTB9?NHNHO:UBHRBO:8RHC/;/.0HRB0:H:VB.N<<<S`C\:3?N;1@RBR/N0R/.8BXR:N\:BTTRB./NNBOH:.8HR/HRB/;3.B:NHRB2?X8B3WT;:0/H:3.:NSNB.N:C;BS<ZO3T..BBXNH3W/9:;:/O:VBR:9NB;WT:HRHRBd3.:.8`OX:./.0BN3WcNHBNJ/OUCBW3OBNR/O:.8R:N3 !"##$%"&'()*+,-./0123456170189.:53.; <8.=>3?@A=BCB9:74J=013581639.39:74J=0MJ3L639.39:74J=1N7O5JLO5P639.39:74J=Q4852L85189.34639.39:74J=39:74J=??47S5639.39:74J=TL855M5J639.39:74JX]^_`ab_WXcdga_ii_Zg[g_a[_[jVXVk_agahXVlmVZ[W[nopqrstuvrwx`WZmaWagf_mZyzcVagVc{z[jViXV|g_mZ{_WXcyWZ[zVWXx}ga~V[jVa[jVXVjW|V{VVaa_~jWahVZga~_acg[g_aZga[jVWXVXV€_XVd[jVXVgZa_XVWZ_a[_XVk_aV[jW[WXVWxeWf‚ƒ„_ii_ZVc[_cV|Vy_igah[jW[WXVW…†‡ƒ‚ˆ‰x^jV_`aVX`gyyZ[gyyXV~__X[jXVV[gfVZ_|VXxdhXWa[gahWXVk_agah~jWahV`_myc{VWZyWiga[jV€W~V[_f_Z[_€[jV~g[gkVaZdz_mX~_aZ[g[mVa[Zdga[jgZiWX[_€[_`a`X[zWacj_fVd€_XZ_fVd[jVgXyg€VZW|gahZd`g[j[jVXVWygkW[g_a[jW[[jVgXga|VZ[fVa[`WZZV~mXVc{z[jV€W~[[jW[[jVWXVWgZk_aVcY‹xVk_agah_€[jW[iWX~Vy`gyy~WmZVW€gaWa~gWy{y_`[_[jVaVghj{_Xj__cWZ[jVzZVV[jVgXiX_iVX[z|WymVZcX_icXWfW[g~Wya[jVWXVWWX_mac[jV\X_ZiV~[_XŒiWX[fVa[Zxy_XVz_m[_ygZ[Va[_[jV`gyy_€[jV[_i[gVX_€z_mX_`a_XhWagkW[g_aWy~jWX[d[jV~g[gkVaZdWaccVaz[jgZXVlmVZ[[_XVk_aV•v’rš›o pœš 2/15/2025 I went back and looked at the letter that I submitted to the town officials opposing the rezone of 685 Peak View the first time around. My thoughts then and now remain unchanged as do the conditions of the property. While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning the remainder 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters submitted in previous rezoning requests. Has the applicant’s intent changed? NO I stated then “that he intended 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.” Fast forward to this current zoning request! The original application was denied and this one should be also. Let’s start by simply maintaining the approved and long-standing 1-acre lot plan and following our guiding documents. We support the current 1-acre lot zoning. 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. Why would you even consider his request after the town board voted down his request 7-0 just over a year ago? I have been a part-time resident in Estes Park since 2013 and will be moving to Estes full-time in May 2025. Thank you for your time Jan Scott 512 Devon Dr. !"#$% &!'()!)*(+,-../0-123 4*54&67889:;<=7>?@ABCDE>FG=HDI J;>KJ8LMNKAOV:8VGH;CKCWEFFB8V:8VGH;CKD=8?E=B8V:8VGH;CKLL;HX?B8V:8VGH;CK7WEY8F:H?B8V:8VGH;CKD>C8F8V:8VGH;CK=[H<?CF<?\B8V:8VGH;C8:ECE>?^^GJ;E?7UW8>VE?\W>V;8_<8V:ECE>?:HWE`8:W8;8DE>?>?C9;H98;:[H?Ra@b8E7c>8XH<8`8?=H?V>\8;W>V;8_<8V:EZ:8;:H:HX?LHE;\`H:8\\HX?W>V;8_<8V:fgOh<V:H`8;E[8E;ECH:W8;8>VE?8X9FE??>?C\>;8=:H;iKUHX?kHE;\iKTE[H;iK?8XL<\\[L<\\[V[V:8DiS;8E?[HZH?\>:>H?ViH`8;EFF:W8V8[8E;V=;8E:8\:W8>;HX?DH?V:8;:WE::W8[?HX=E??H:=H?:;HFL[EFFHX>?C?8XL<VE;8CE;\:HHL:E>?WH<V>?Cil88DVF>78:W>VWEVDE[L8L88?CH>?CH?ZH;[8E;VE?\[8E;ViiUW8;=E?=WE?C8:W88?8Z>:HZ\8`8FH98;VE?\H:W8;XW>F8F8E`>?C:W8=<;;8?:;8V>\8?:VH?:W8WHH7XW8?:W8[LH<CW:F8VH;WE`>?C:W8=H\8;8X;>::8?h<V::HDE78E9;HZ>:GUWE:>VXWE:>:V;8EFF[EFFELH<:Gb;HZ>:GW898H9F8XWHE;8V<99HV8\:HL8H?:W8:H9HZ:W8H;C=WE;:ijV>:h<V:E=WE;:i[DHDEFXE[V:8FF>?CD8:HL8WE99[X>:WXWE:jWE\KL<::WE:\>\?m:V:H9D8Z;HDEV7>?CW8;>ZV?>V;E=78:GlW8XH<F\VE[nopqKL<:XW8?j789:EV7>?CH`8;E?\H`8;VW8XH<F\8`8?:<EFF[VE[8;V:E?\i:WH<CW:V8?:8;D[D>?\XW8?j:W>?7HZXWE:J;E?7V>VXE?:>?C:H\H[8:ECE>?G]8LH<CW::W88?GATrE?\7?8XEFFEFH?CXWE::W8YH?>?CXEVGEFH?CEVX8FF:WE:VHD8\E[:W89;H98;:[E=;HVV:W8V:;88:XH<F\L8L<>F:H?E:MWHD8sV=;8Ge8Z:W8L<>F\>?C;<F8VGjZJ;E?7=E?m:ZHFFHX:W8;<F8VE?\>Z:W89FE??>?C=HDD>VV>H?E?\UHX?kHECE>?:W8?XW[WE`8<VE::W8:H9HZ:W8H;C=WE;:it<V::8FFJ;E?7>:VMWHD8sE=;8^GG:E78>:H;F8EE\>?C{| |€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anuary 30th, 2025 Dear Mayor and Trustees, Thank You for reading this and your service. Unfortunately, I am writing about the adjacent property again which has now consumed just about our entire 2.5 years of living here as a new family year-round. I have had to bring my child to meetings, spend time writing, studying the code / comp plan, and meetings with my neighbors was not what we expected moving here; Yes I know zoning can change but in a neighborhood where homes were just built in E1 in 2024 and both of my neighbors in 2019 , our home in 2012 I didn’t expect 4x’s the changes in this area. Mayor Koenig made a notation last time how the impacts can alter life decisions; we are living that truth. I am an adjacent property owner who lives directly below the property, I oppose the rezoning once again. I did my due diligence purchasing only 6 months before this landowner and not once thought there was any legal ramification to change the law to 4 x’s rezoning and I still do not. Habitat is “conditionally” involved and there’s a “probability” of what they can create as per the neighborhood meeting, I don’t question their ability to do good things, but I do question the use of words I heard at the meeting and 4x’s rezoning for one landowner. The statement of intent on 1/29/2025 now publicly posted states: “Eight of the twelve lots shown on the Concept Plan are under contract to be purchased by Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley.” How is an E1 property behind us of 4.47 acres already under contract for 8 lots? I think the problem with this application and the fact that there have been 10+ submittals with varying high-density options by the landowner is because it is out so of character and maybe that’s because it’s the wrong location. There is no change in condition in the effected area and it is overall incompatible with many portions of the comprehensive plan. Changes have occurred over the last few years / months and here they are: 1. Legal addition of ADU’s in E1 Current Zoning: R Zoning of this property gives 4. 47 acres to build ¼ acre lots or 17 homes + an ADU for each one = 34 potential homes on 4.47 acres. A deed in Colorado to my understanding cannot be enforced to restrict an ADU. a. “The suburban estate category is intended for low to medium density single family residential development” 2. No Occupancy limits on homes 3. Indefinite and Unprecedented flow of 5+ million per year of 6E Funds to address workforce housing. Mr. Moulton acknowledged many advances, land banking, building and even potential habitat partnerships that have occurred in the past year at the neighborhood meeting as well. Are we now paying the tax advertised as the tax we don’t pay? Applicant states there is an “affordability crisis” as justification yet there was a recent down zoning of a property in town when there is an affordability and housing crisis? Trustee Brown stated “we just don’t have the land for RM” during the rezoning of South St. Vrain yet the co-applicant just downzoned an RM property. If I am incorrect how is the “crisis” being measured and should rezoning criteria be reworded for homebuyers to make informed decisions not open to interpretation. Per Realtor.com as of 1/30/25 when searching homes for sale in Estes Park, 150 results of homes pull on the market, when segmented to a max of $600K it is 49 homes for sale not including any rentals that is about 1/3 of the inventory, there is a ¼ page ad in the paper for jobs in Estes Park and there are additional homes over $600K with the same sq. footage or much less as those under $600K but they have an STR which nearly doubled the priced on one per sqft. (Refer to STR’s currently listed on the open market 2625 Mary’s Lake Road and Larkspur) The applicant states it is compatible with the comp plan because page 67 states ¼ acre lots in the suburban estate category, 1 Acre lots border each and all sides of this property and the development further down refers to “R” on the visual map you were provided but if you pull the property records most (95%) are over 1/3 of an acre, the visual map supplied by the applicant is misleading. I encourage and invite you all for a site visit to walk around the neighborhood. Page 67 also states: “New Homes should be appropriately scaled for compatibility within the existing neighborhood”. Again, this neighborhood did just have new homes built that align with E1 in 2024, 2019 and 2018. Page 67 also states, “As much as possible, dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are discouraged in favor of efficient, interconnected street networks.” A cul-de-sac is the only option on this lot r/t the spite strips on the Devon and Twin Sides. Lastly in the unanimous denial by Trustees in 2023, Trustee Lancaster suggested a cluster zoning which would have allowed smaller lots but more open space, so this is more in character with the neighborhood and aligns with the comp plan also stated on page 67 under Suburban Estate. I suggested this in an email to Habitat and publicly at the meeting as noted on Planner Hornbeck’s report, the written response from Habitat was they didn’t think this could financially work but my response is because it cannot financially work for whom? I have 0 issue with 4 affordable homes that align with the current zoning, but I don’t think one landowner should be granted 4x’s rezoning because it is the only way they can make it work, maybe it’s the wrong plot of land or maybe it’s just not meant for 4 x’s density with potential ADU addition. I’d personally be receptive to the cluster of 1/3+ with the additional open space allotted per the definition which would fall in character with the neighborhood and allow space for our wildlife who live and birth here but I can only speak for myself. There is no change in condition in the affected area and a law shouldn’t be changed when open to interpretation rather clear and concise nor should the law be fluid to downzone and upzone for any particular applicant, this is incompatible with the comp plan as noted above when looking at the character and density definition of the surrounding neighborhood also evidenced by the need for 10+ modifications submitted for this parcel, I ask you to please vote NO. Future land use does NOT supersede zoning as per page 75 of the comprehensive plan. Thank You, Stephanie Pawson, Meeker Drive ! "# $%&& ),-./011023-4567(89,5,:;97<=>1()?@5(AB14)6(C9;D9/9-(E5*9,I##J #K LL $M # $ $ K # $P #QRN S# T%U% && QNO K LL M $#QV%$ QW&$ # $L U #QNX9A$# K LL RU #QS$# %% P%$N $W& LWP%&&R#Z MM $K $SN$$&L$&L#% % P #Q $#%%[% #% \L ]\W [ &%#[ W $ I^..9;A45_46((+-9G(9,./)6(_9,*)7/_9,_(7,-9-4(:9H(7:(,-5-5(6A5-45,-456_9++F,5-/`)6(H5*(,_(*G/-4(;)_-,96-F*5(6.)-(*a7597-9)89,5,:_4),:(+F_4.(667(bF57(*I#%%WW #N6)aa.5_)-59,G/c7),?d4(56eDf2-97(89,(<=>1()?@5(AA)6F,),5-4(d9A,g9)7*G/)hBiH9-(9,2(a-(+G(7C<`CiCjIk l% W# \ #mN # M & #&W%M &Z %$$ % #%Nn % $ J & $#W$$W & N & $$L #& # &# %M %# W $ ###ND4),:(*W& L M# # P%LL$ o W$# # M# #L$% $& # &L% $S# &W # [%L # $% W&$&&# M%%%# % # # YTN rRWL $$ LL S$N sstsL QP%& M$ %$$ # #QLL$N# LL$#$ #$#%%RW 6- !"#""!#$%&'# ""("")*+#,%-- % &."1 "$1$$"%1 2 $33458 5 389:13 8 9 ; <89983 = 853 ;83.?212)!$# )##1@@""!%A@ @$$")$ %#$.)@""# $!B!)""@CB )'2@DE*%! .F$$#"$"%"221/FEGH?$%@""@0#) !)B"2 $.B$,21!#?02"2$%$%#)@#" !!# ,%"@ .GD#" ""@%"" @@ )%!+#)"""""@$%%22#) .J#/FE )%-" -"1# ) $ 2%"# %22 %K2" 2"")%# !)$, +# "$1KK$,1 !#B " B$2"! %./FEGH# #@!%$%)$!".E1#"A""")LMNMO#%22#) """!"##.TVQQUWXYZQT[\ZTYT]T^_[QVQ\YQ`U2""-222a# )@" 1bcN1LdA%2.-.22!@@# %2e@F).!%@"@)- 2 @))##A%.%22 %$ %#"0 @)&.F@ !%#$%2)) K K#$%2!@02 %!"@) +#, !)$I F%@"2")%%$2#2)$#" h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b,-'%,/1#)0##$0"7,#$%,$&*%'#$-"+&,#&#$%'%,#0+-#%,)./#,#011-.06"/+.%')9e';W/'",,-02;.%'0,'06$#0#f,-'%-,&"[&',&+%&8#0+0,+#$-##&2-(f,,$&'#-6%,4-".%(%-',&[,&1024&",#'/4#0&"=g AjlmGJnHKJCDJFHDMGJCoHJCDMQCFECSHFQDQIQJFJCSCpLHMHDHCFHDLFQFGHFQqCrIpJIFGEIFQLstBNNpLHDEMJFHDQCQCNsuCHHDIJIIHIIKHCFIFSINsCQFFQFJNNsQvwHMFEnHOCQLDEDFGHxQqCGJnHJCsJDDEFEQCJNMQLLQvQLJFQySNNsECyQLKQSLxLSIFHHItz{|}|~€ ‚ƒƒ }„…€†|‡…ˆ|€‰|„{Š„ ‚}„|Šˆ Ž|„„{|€||ˆ }| …„…€†ŽŠ}‘|„JCDsQSLDHMEIEQCIIGQSNDDHCOCQFwSIFvHCHyJMFQLECyQLKJFEQCt’NHJIHMQCIEDHLFGJFNJIFIFJFHKHCFv== > ? @AJCDFGEC˜NQCoJCDGJLDJvQSFFGHpLQpQIJNIJFGJCDOFGHELNQCD(&/':2/40-'('%,8&",0.010#0%,FQFGQIHqGQHNHMFHDsQStNEyHNQCoKHKvHLIQyFGEIMQKKSCEFsO”FGEC˜EFrIIJyHFQIJsFGHMQKKSCEFNsqHNNJFJDJpFECoFQMGJCoHQnHLFGHNJIFu››sHJLIQLIQqEFGQSFoQnHLCKJNQnHL™LHJMGt”CKsQpECEQCOFGHMQKKSCEFsEIœSEFHMJpJvNHQyKJECFJECKHQIFJIEIqEFGQSFFGHCHHDyQLoQnHLCKHCFFQLHKQnHJNNFGHLEoGFIOpLQMIJšQLDHDFQpJIFoHCHLJFEQCItxGJFIJEDOMGJCoHqENNJNqJsIMQCFECSHOJDHLFGHEKpJMFsQSqENNGJnHQCFGQIHMGJCoHIOQCMHMGJCoHDEFrIGJLDFQ¤z¥¡ ¦£z §zžzŸ ¡ ¨ž©ª©«¬¡ž¬ž¥£¦‰Š€„„Š„|xGHLH®QCECovHECopLQpQIHDEIMQCIEIFHCFqEFGFGH–QKp’GH–QKp’NJCQCpJoH¯°™SCDHLmSvSLvJCjIFJFH™KHCFEQCIu±²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`"#$%+664(*+'-L+<%0'.L%'-(.'./3,+('+1%*.'-,.4?S^,+,%+4,%+3H(L6+*-%32H3,+('+1%.a-$(06,.6%,-H+'3-$%(L6+*-5(4 !"# $% $$&&'#(!)*$*+$!)'"&, *#, $!-.&#,$$ $$$ , $., "#,!2032/0405310 0602 7 8$"$'& &..,$$#9$$ $$*$:$="&"$,&&$ !"#$" # $ "9,#=""" $,=$-$ !A &+""9,&&$ ;&"$ !B . "$.&$&C!$#E,> ,E#!#.*$+,=".=$-$ !$$<8$E.BI&B.JF!<8LN N"#.IPQF;J 860 S St. Vrain Town Board Letter I am strongly opposed to the proposed rezoning of the .98-acre property at 860 S St. Vrain. There are many compelling reasons to oppose this rezoning, but the fact that the proposal is in violation of two mandatory requirements our Development Code should stop this development in its tracks. 1. “The rezoning is necessary to address Changes in Conditions in the area aAected.” It is obvious to any objective observer that there are no changes in condition that justify the rezoning. The staA report goes through a long discussion that avoids addressing the plain language of the statute. The staA report change in conditions “justiﬁcation” statements do not address true changes in the area. Citing 30 to 40 year old projects as a change of condition for this current rezoning is absurd. Talking about the entire town’s lack of aAordable housing misses in two ways: one cannot contend that “changes in conditions in the Area aAected” encompasses the entire town, if so, the code provision is meaningless. Second, the staA discussion consistently uses the lack of “aAordable” housing as a change in conditions. The shortage of aAordable housing is nothing new in Estes Park, and $700,000+ housing units are not aAordable housing, so why is “aAordable” being used in their discussion? 2. The staA also misses the mark on the second requirement: that the rezoning is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan designates this area as “mixed use centers and corridors” which this proposed develop does not meet. In general, the staA report to justify meeting this requirement is poorly argued, using contorted logic to justify that this application conforms to the comprehensive plan. Jed Eide 607 Longs Drive, Estes Park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`/-23`-,,<N-0-89a-PP,28-317^9R201J20P9002Q,<-3V1J-1201J<0.Qc<819T1J<3<R/<S93235/<X.<017;J<N-/<026P,N-3<3121N1J-1J-0<dP/<00<V9T1J<P/9P90<V,910Ue1J</<S93235/<X.<01205/-31<V7;J<NJ-I<3969/<01-3V235931J20200.-,Q.N</RJ9625J1Q<231</<01<V23P./8J-0235-3N9T1J<,910231J<T.1./<=-5-23Ue-PP/9I<V7<6<<1235R-01-K<3.PQNH/7[6</093T/96^-Q21-152I235-3<dP,-3-12939TRJ-11J<9/5-32S-9R21J1J<P/9P</12<01J-11J<NJ9P<19P./8J-0<T/96e/-3K;J<207H/7;J<20J260<,TV2V391/<-NX.<012930-3V/<0P93V19-3N8966<310L-0/<X.2/<VQN1J<-PP,28-31-889/V235191J<3<R0P-319T1J<6<<12357/<-,V208.002939TRJ-1-Q9.11J20-PP,28-1293T9//<S932356-K<021-3N69/<-88<P1-Q,<1J-31J=-P/<I29.0-PP,28-1293QNH/7;J<2019/<S93<1J20P/9P</1N-1ghBG<-K`2<RR-0V<32<VQN1J<aA7f11J<126<9T1J-1-PP,28-1293=H/7;J<20R-0.3-Q,<19V<69301/-1<-3NL8J-35<023893V21291J<8J-35<7fT1</1J<V<32-,=J<0.QV2I2V<V1J<P-/8<,=-3V09,V1R9@a-8/<,9101J-11J<<d201235S<8J-35<023893V2129301J-1R9.,Vc.012TN1J203<R-PP,28-1293bkJNR-0^-Q21-10.8J-6-c9/P-021c.01-069K<08/<<3198/<-1<lR-/6-3VT.SSNlT<<,2350-Q9.11J<-PP,28-1293bvorw" !"#""$%&''()&'*##+,-./+-012324456768198:51;<=>5?764@>A B1?CD5EFGCHGP;Q15?E:53?;5;6@1=CR75EE?E=<2P;2P6@1=E;O2E?57@T;:2R75EP;@12O2Q27@R;:2U@V@;2W8ER51427@EL25XY?2Z[1?Q2C\YWSZ5P?ET@1>7@R21CB15EXN:2?PC:5PR51;E212OZ?;:]53?;5;T@1]8>5E?;V;@P83O?Q?O25EOO2Q27@R5;;5?E5372:P8RR@1;P12O2Q27@R>2E;;@?E4125P25;;5?E5372:@8P?E==2E21577VC5EO]53?;5;T@1]8>5E?;VPR24?4;@1P?P4@E421E2O;:5;12`a@E?E=;:?PR51427P811@8EO2O3V7@ZO2EP?;V12P?O2E;?57a@E?E=E@;@E771298?12>2E;@T4:5E=2@T4@EO?;?@EPCb\[Uc24;?@EJ6J[6F6dN:25>2EO>2E;?PE242PP51V;@5@EO?;?@EP?E;:25125P5TT24;2OdeC?;4@87O8EO21>?E2;:212P?O2E;?57f4:5154;21@TR@1;?@EP@T577@T1427P6N:2R1242O2E;@TO@ZEa@E?E=@T7@;P@T5E5412@1>@12;@Fgh5412P4@87O725O;@O2Q27@REO?ET?77?E=P?E=72T5>?7VE2?=:3@1:@@OP6_8?7O?E=537@4X@T:?=:O2EP?;V:@8P?E=;:5;?Phi;:22i;V5RR251P;@32?E5RR1@R1?5;2C5EO4@87O5TT24;1275;?@EP@E3@;:P?O2P@T;:2O2Q27@R>2E;6\sxyzvpporpt{utqjok|}~okpqsk{lqjosq}vplqrtjlqtorpms{pssu€jvpl{lvkt{oq~l|jo{{twt{jomnt ;?@E@TL12P21Q2\P;2PL51XbL\Le?P54;?Q27V2E=5=2O?ER1@Q?O?E=R837?4?ER8;@E;:2E2ZO2Q27@2\YWS_@51O?P?EP8RR@1;@T;:2R@P?;?@EP5EO2TT@1;P@TL\LZ?;:12=51O;@;:?PO2Q27@R>2E;RŠ‹Œˆ„ Ž†ˆ †Š”„ Œ‰„•Ž – † Œ‡ŽŒ†•0R:@1E324X<2P;2P6@1=A M@ECD5EFJCHG198:51;012324456768198:51;<=>5?764@>AP;Q15?E:53?;5;6@1=CR75EE?E=<2P;2P6@1=1;:24@>>2E;PMP6›198:51;6N:2VZ?7732?E478O2O?E;:2>22;?E=>5;21?57PP:@87O;:?P?;2>>@@>>?PP?@E5EON@ZE_@51O64XCSœUL212Q27@R>2E;[2R51;>2E;PL51X£¡¤¥¢¢&¦§ ! "#$% & '()*$!+,$-#$..$!.$/"01234556748 9:$*!.+;*<! &1= >?@ABBCBDEFGHFGIJKDLPJQQRFS>?@ABBCBDEFGHFGIJKDLCBHTF?@ABBCBDEFGHFGG?AQVJ@RFKICHYZFSF@J?QFBHZF?AKHQFBHGHFGOAK\defgdhiejkepqq\rWlsqtouupopzvwVAne|}e|~gdfJKUAKRFRQFGGADFwwwwwwwww ! $!>|}e‚ƒaj„e~…†^{ƒg}‡a„ˆ~bg‡LrZFPxqrpqpzAHvNzvŠ‹‰UNl??JGCHCJBHJABY F JBCBDJBystOFA\‘CFU’ F?JKHG?KF?AKFR YWZXBCHYZFS@FJ?QFBH>‚ˆajj„jf{e|}e|~gdfL”œœš›ž¦”œ”§¨”˜©ª«¢§š¬”¤š¢®–£˜š®˜š«¢§›«š›˜¤«ž¯˜”œ”š°”¤›•”±”˜˜”²›˜¤š ²› ”š²®¨–˜®––¤§””³ ²´–˜¢®”˜”µ– š ²–´¶·¸¹”›º»š”ž¯–¼®›˜”¨”•–š¢®¥–££¼´˜– ¢¨”œ›£«”š ¢®”¼˜”°š–£«š¦˜”¼–˜¢š««£”¤´–˜˜”µ– š ²¢–¢®š«¼˜–¼”˜¢¥š ©½©¾š¢«¢›¢”¤”®›°”¿«–§”–˜›´””¢–²”¢¢–—›˜¥À«•›º”¢®”¥¨š˜¢®®”˜”™Á®”¼®–¢–«¯›±›œ®”¤”˜”›••¢›º” ¢®š«¼›«¢¥”›˜›•– ”™Á®”–¼” «¼›œ”– ¢®”¼•› «¯«””š š³›••¥ «š¢¥–´¢®”£«”š«š ®›˜§– ¥š¢®¢®””š²®¨–˜®––¤¨›«”¤– ´›œ¢–˜««£œ®¢”˜˜”«š¤” ³›•›˜”›««” «š³°”” °š˜– §” ¢›•´”›¢£˜”«›«£ šÅ£”–˜®š²®•¥°š«š¨•” ¤´–˜§«ž–˜¼•›œ”«–´š ¢”˜”«¢«– ÇÈÉ]`eeÊedËd„iežÌ¹·½¸ªÍÎ¢Õ¹›«– ž¡¢”¼®› š”Ö|aƒdj×}Ø‚aÙ|gj{ÚaÛa×a~bg‡Ü›¥ž¦”œ”§¨”˜¾½ž©½©áªªÂ¾ªÔ—š”¹›«– ÇÁ”«¢ÎÖ|}e‚ƒaj„e~…†^{ƒg}‡a„ˆ~bg‡Ü 12/26/24, 8:51 AM Town of Estes Park Mail - Opposition to Coyote Run Phase II https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=bfa6edde06&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1819518259624979785&simpl=msg-f:1819518259624979785 1/1 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Opposition to Coyote Run Phase II 1 message Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 8:43 AM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> I am in opposition to the latest, ludicrous re-zoning request of 685 Peak View. On September 26, 2023, the Town Board unanimously voted 7-0 to deny a previous re-zoning attempt. How is this any different? It is not! NO “…changes in conditions in the areas affected…,”as required by the Estes Park Development Code Review Standards item #1, exist. They did not exist in the previous applications (and numerous proposals by the Developer), as clearly affirmed by the Town Board’s unanimous decision of denial of the previous re-zoning application, and they do not exist now. Thank you for denying this application, Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP) Estes Park Resident Community Development Planning Commission June 17, 2025 685 Peak View Drive Rezoning Frank Theis, CMS Planning and Development, Inc., (Owner/Applicant)/ David Emerson, Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley (Applicant) Presented by Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Vicinity Map of Subject Area Zoning Map COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION ZONING USES SUBJECT PARCEL Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential NORTH Suburban Estate EV E-1 (Estate) (County)Single-Family Residential SOUTH Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate)Single-Family Residential EAST Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate)Single-Family Residential WEST Neighborhood Village E-1 (Estate)Single-Family Residential Conceptual Subdivision Advantages The application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance with Section 3.3.D “Standards for Review” of the EPDC, all applications for rezoning shall be reviewed for compliance with the following standards and criteria: 1.The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. 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. 3.The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Change in Conditions 1996 Future Land Use Map Subject Property: Estate (E-1) Change in Conditions 2022 Future Land Use Map Change in Conditions •Since 2000, median sales prices of houses in Estes Park have grown from approximately $190,000 to $692,000 in 2024. That represents a 264% increase in 24 years or an annualized increase of 11%. •50% escalation in home values during the two-and-a-half-year period from March 2020 to September 2022 . •Median household income in Larimer County has increased at a much slower pace, from $49,758 to $88,519, or a 78% increase, from 2000 to 2023 . •Renters are especially challenged to find attainable housing. In 2010 41% of renters were cost burdened, which rose to 63% in 2020 (data from 2000 was not available). Households paying more than 30% of their gross income toward housing costs are considered cost burdened. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected, as outlined above. Comp Plan Compatibility and Consistency Compatibility and Consistency with Existing Growth and Development Patterns Compatible or Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. Compatibility and Consistency with Existing Growth and Development Patterns Surrounding Density (dwelling units/acre) Compatibility and Consistency with Existing Growth and Development Patterns The height, scale, mass and bulk of structures will be in character with the existing area by following the R zone district development code standards: •30-foot maximum building height •Setbacks of 15 feet from front and rear lot lines and ten feet from side lot lines. Landscaping, lighting, noise, and architecture of new development is expected to be compatible and consistent with the existing area. Vehicular traffic will be in character with existing conditions in the neighborhood. •4.5% increase in traffic anticipated on Peak View Drive at the Marys Lake Road intersection. •No adverse traffic/intersection impacts are anticipated Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, as well as existing growth and development patterns nearby and throughout the area. Ability to Serve 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: No comments from service or utility providers expressed opposition to the rezoning or an inability to provide adequate services and facilities. Disadvantages •Numerous public comments have been received expressing opposition to the rezoning. Comments include arguments that there has not been a change in conditions, concern for increased traffic and congestion, impacts on environment, and other items. However, staff’s analysis is that the proposal meets the applicable review criteria of EPDC Section 3.3. Public Comment Change in Conditions Multiple commenters state that the neighborhood remains unchanged since the last rezoning application was denied in 2023. However, the question at hand, in staff’s view, is if there has been a change in conditions since the property’s zoning was established in 2000, including changes in adopted plans and policies and not just physical changes. Neighborhood Character & Density Many commentors see the proposed development as incompatible with the existing character of the area, citing the difference in lot sizes proposed to what exists in the area. Environmental and Wildlife Concerns Several comments raise concerns about the environmental impact, particularly regarding drainage, wildlife, and wildfire risk. Drainage will be reviewed in detail should the project proceed to subdivision platting. As an area within an important habitat area (high use area for deer), EPDC restrictions on fencing and non-native landscaping will apply to any future subdivision and development. The area is not mapped within a high fire danger, but is subject to wildfire risk like all areas of the Estes Valley. Public Comment Traffic Some commentors believe traffic associated with development will lead to dangerous conditions and congestion. As stated above, the traffic memo indicates no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated. Spot Zoning Some commentors believe the request would be an illegal spot zoning. However, case law indicates rezoning in conformance with adopted land use policies, such as the Comprehensive Plan, is not spot zoning. Housing Affordability Some residents argue the proposed homes would not be genuinely affordable and that the affordability crisis is being used as a pretext for development. The applicant has volunteered to record deed restrictions on eight of the properties to preserve the lots as attainable in the 80-115% maximum AMI range. Staff recommends a condition of rezoning approval that subsequent subdivision applications include recording of these deed restrictions. Public Notice 1.Notice of this meeting was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, on May 30th 2025. 2.Notification was mailed to all required adjacent property owners on May 1, 2025. 3.Sign posted on property by applicant. 4.Neighborhood meeting – January 11, 2025 Action Recommended Staff recommends Planning Commission forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. Future subdivision shall include a minimum of eight lots that shall be deed restricted as “attainable” to households earning a maximum of 115% of the Larimer County Area Median Income and in accordance with the requirements of Development Code Section 11.4. 2. All subsequent subdivision applications shall be in general conformance with the conceptual subdivision plan, including access, open space, and lot size and layout, unless otherwise expressly approved by the Board of Trustees. Sample Motions 1.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions: 1.Future subdivision shall include a minimum of eight lots that shall be deed restricted as “attainable” to households earning a maximum of 115% of the Larimer County Area Median Income and in accordance with the requirements of Development Code Section 11.4. 2.All subsequent subdivision applications shall be in general conformance with the conceptual subdivision plan, including access, open space, and lot size and layout, unless otherwise expressly approved by the Board of Trustees. 2.I move to continue the application to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3.I move to forward to Town Board a recommendation to deny the rezoning application, finding that … [state reasons for denial].