HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2023-09-26 Public Comment 2From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:48:38 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Attachments: TB Peak View Final.pdf
Importance: High
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
Comments submitted to the Town Board by 09-20-2023
Page 1
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:48:38 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Attachments: TB Peak View Final.pdf
Importance: High
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
Page 2
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:48:38 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Attachments: TB Peak View Final.pdf
Importance: High
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
Page 3
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:48:38 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Attachments: TB Peak View Final.pdf
Importance: High
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
Page 4
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:48:38 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Attachments: TB Peak View Final.pdf
Importance: High
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
Page 5
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:48:38 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Attachments: TB Peak View Final.pdf
Importance: High
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
Page 6
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:48:38 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Attachments: TB Peak View Final.pdf
Importance: High
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
Page 7
September 6, 2023
RE: 685 Peak View / Coyote Ridge
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees,
Building or laying concrete on any parcel with green space in Estes Park isn’t the answer to our housing problem, I
believe this rezoning sends the message that it is and allows developers to rezone with ease creating an irreversible
decision with detrimental consequences to our surrounding environment. It’s expensive to live here and it always will
be, we are further away from any major city driving up costs. We need to actively attract and retain a workforce as well
not just build on any open space (all cities in CO are currently doing this, so how do we now compete and attract the
workforce?). There is no waitlist for Wildfire they are well over 90 days on the market, 6 on the market as I write this and
applicants newest house on highway 7 is almost 6 months on the market. Increasing inventory on a parcel that will list
for over 600K+ isn’t changing the economic situation of needing a reliable car, insurance, year-round employment, and
access to affordable groceries, auto repair, home repair and other services. This rezoning is not affordable, not
attainable or deed/covenant restricted as the statement of intent documents it aligns with the comprehensive plan for
this very reason therefore it does NOT meet rezoning criteria standards of review for rezoning #2 . One landowner has
manipulated every talking point related to housing in the comprehensive plan which would maximize profit to one
landowner while every surrounding landowner has tried to talk about the 8 other guiding principles which we believe are
completely ignored related to our surrounding environment. Please listen. If you want real growth listen to your
citizens, not the developer who walked out of the community meeting and community development who sadly chose to
call a group of citizens “nimbies” in a public meeting followed by drafting a song to display for those citizens who entered
the building to see. Citizens simply care about where they live and want to be heard, please listen.
Here is what we (the Adjacent Property Owners in the affected area) care about, we live here and we can attest that we
have prevailing winds specific to this location, we abut a high tree fire zone, Peak View is dangerous period (I am the
resident who wrote about my concerns specific to Peak View and Longs last year well before this), and we have
stormwater issues, please listen. We have wildlife who birth here and yes, the area is a corridor at least acknowledged to
the citizens and the buyers of the recently purchased Thumb open space via the reports of Terracon when purchasing the
nearby property yet in community developments presentation for this rezoning it’s nonexistent (the presentation was
and is flawed), this property is less than .25 mile radius to this property.
Please listen to our PC here are some of their comments during the subdivision approval for coyote ridge 685 Peak View:
•“there’s some things about this that don’t make complete sense” – Commissioner Hanson 2:01
•“this is turning around on a hillside” -Commissioner Hanson
•“I’m not expert enough to see how it works out but it looks surprising to me” – Commissioner Hanson
•“The final plat will go to the TB only” – Director Garner
•”this does not comply with the development code as it is written” – Commissioner Shirk 1:49
•“I don’t know I have a lot of concerns I guess” 2:06 – Commissioner Shirk
•“we cannot require we can recommend” -Commissioner Heiser 2:07
•“stormwater is well beyond my level of expertise” – Commissioner Heiser 2:09
Please Listen not because over 1500 citizens have signed a petition against ANY rezoning to 685 Peak View but because
this rezoning it is not in alignment with the comprehensive plan as there are no deeds, no covenants, no affordability, no
attainability to this property in addition Future land use does NOT supersede zoning as per page 75 of the
comprehensive plan and the future land use of Suburban Estate also specifies:
o Cul de sacs and dead-end streets are discouraged in this category (this plan allows for a temporary turnaround
for a fire truck on a new dead-end street)
o Setbacks of 30+ feet are stated in Suburban Estate E rezoning would greatly reduce this.
Thank You, Stephanie Pawson (Meeker Drive)
Page 8
From: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 11:04:38 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: 685 peak view Theis debacle!!
This builder is greedy and dangerously incompetent for our city plan
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward? It
contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this at the
neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation?
WHO BENEFITS??
Jonathan Hauger
Page 9
From: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 11:04:38 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: 685 peak view Theis debacle!!
This builder is greedy and dangerously incompetent for our city plan
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward? It
contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this at the
neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation?
WHO BENEFITS??
Jonathan Hauger
Page 10
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:30:24 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock"
<mcomstock@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being considered
after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the developer is
calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 11
From: Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 11:22:03 -0600
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane in the Koral
Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until now we have seen
new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value of the area. We are very concerned
about the zoning request 685 Peak View Drive that will be completely out of character, size and
value of the neighborhood, and would respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of observing the daily
coming and going of wildlife. Shortly after we purchased our home the first of three McCord lots
were taken out of the trust and sold. These three lots are directly below our property. Our first
thoughts were that this would impact the animal’s movements. But the three homes that were
built were in accordance with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected on
the deer and other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will have a
profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive heat and water
needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense housing would be toxic for our
environment. We need to start now to preserve and protect Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 12
From: Al Wagner <awagz44@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, 25 May 2023 13:18:49 +0000 (UTC)
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Cc: "Jwoeber@estes.org" <Jwoeber@estes.org>; "KJPO@msn.com"
<KJPO@msn.com>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
At the last planning meeting Mr. Theus raved about getting the storm culverts from his property that go
under peak view "blown out". Where is that water going?
In 2013 several of us down the hill had water damage during the flood of 13. I realize this was a very
unusual rain event, but what will happen if we build 30, 40 or 60 houses on 685? Will all the additional
storm water running from roofs, driveways, gutters, and streets end up in our basements again. Even the
Dannels' home on pinewood lane was effected including mine on dekker circle.
I'm sure your studies have addressed this situation and we can avoid "after the fact" concerns down the
road.
A H Wagner
1728 Dekker Circle
Page 13
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:54:12 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Importance: Normal
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce
affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the
case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 14
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:30:24 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock"
<mcomstock@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being considered
after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the developer is
calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 15
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:54:12 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Importance: Normal
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce
affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the
case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 16
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:30:24 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock"
<mcomstock@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being considered
after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the developer is
calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 17
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:30:24 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock"
<mcomstock@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being considered
after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the developer is
calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 18
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:54:12 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Importance: Normal
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce
affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the
case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 19
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:30:24 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock"
<mcomstock@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being considered
after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the developer is
calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 20
From: Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 11:04:06 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane in the Koral
Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until now we have seen
new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value of the area. We are very concerned
about the zoning request 685 Peak View Drive that will be completely out of character, size and
value of the neighborhood, and would respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of observing the daily
coming and going of wildlife. Shortly after we purchased our home the first of three McCord lots
were taken out of the trust and sold. These three lots are directly below our property. Our first
thoughts were that this would impact the animal’s movements. But the three homes that were
built were in accordance with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected on
the deer and other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will have a
profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive heat and water
needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense housing would be toxic for our
environment. We need to start now to preserve and protect Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 21
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:54:12 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Importance: Normal
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce
affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the
case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 22
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:30:24 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock"
<mcomstock@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being considered
after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the developer is
calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 23
From: Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 11:22:41 -0600
To: "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane in the Koral
Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until now we have seen
new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value of the area. We are very concerned
about the zoning request 685 Peak View Drive that will be completely out of character, size and
value of the neighborhood, and would respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of observing the daily
coming and going of wildlife. Shortly after we purchased our home the first of three McCord lots
were taken out of the trust and sold. These three lots are directly below our property. Our first
thoughts were that this would impact the animal’s movements. But the three homes that were
built were in accordance with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected on
the deer and other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will have a
profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive heat and water
needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense housing would be toxic for our
environment. We need to start now to preserve and protect Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 24
From: Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 11:23:22 -0600
To: "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane in the Koral
Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until now we have seen
new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value of the area. We are very concerned
about the zoning request 685 Peak View Drive that will be completely out of character, size and
value of the neighborhood, and would respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of observing the daily
coming and going of wild life. Shortly after we purchased our home the first of three McCord
lots were taken out of the trust and sold. These three lots are directly below our property. Our
first thoughts were that this would impact the animal’s movements. But the three homes that
were built were in accordance with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected
on the deer and other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will have a
profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive heat and water
needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense housing would be toxic for our
environment. We need to start now to preserve and protect Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 25
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:54:12 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Importance: Normal
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce
affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the
case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 26
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:30:24 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock"
<mcomstock@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being considered
after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the developer is
calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 27
From: Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 11:05:01 -0600
To: "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane in the Koral
Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until now we have seen
new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value of the area. We are very concerned
about the zoning request 685 Peak View Drive that will be completely out of character, size and
value of the neighborhood, and would respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of observing the daily
coming and going of wildlife. Shortly after we purchased our home the first of three McCord lots
were taken out of the trust and sold. These three lots are directly below our property. Our first
thoughts were that this would impact the animal’s movements. But the three homes that were
built were in accordance with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected on
the deer and other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will have a
profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive heat and water
needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense housing would be toxic for our
environment. We need to start now to preserve and protect Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 28
From: Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 11:24:29 -0600
To: "younglund@estes.org" <younglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane in the Koral
Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until now we have seen
new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value of the area. We are very concerned
about the zoning request 685 Peak View Drive that will be completely out of character, size and
value of the neighborhood, and would respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of observing the daily
coming and going of wild life. Shortly after we purchased our home the first of three McCord
lots were taken out of the trust and sold. These three lots are directly below our property. Our
first thoughts were that this would impact the animal’s movements. But the three homes that
were built were in accordance with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected
on the deer and other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will have a
profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive heat and water
needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense housing would be toxic for our
environment. We need to start now to preserve and protect Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 29
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:54:12 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Importance: Normal
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce
affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the
case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 30
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:54:12 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak View
Importance: Normal
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce
affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the
case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 31
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 16:36:53 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jdamweber@estes.org"
<jdamweber@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacpine@estes.org"
<bmacpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak-View drive
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those who have lived here
longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no regard from input from those who live
here. We just moved here when the whole mountain coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed
and got it then was voted out but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his actions except Frank and
everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same company for their entire
life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more people working remotely and take their 401ks
with them when they move on. Most don’t want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at a job. They are
waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles have you read about
national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as well. How many parks have instituted a lottery
or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the park would have a
park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking lot for instance nor have they increased
the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would
just ruin it for everyone. If you think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on committees etc but that
shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This neighborhood will never be the same and those who
come and visit will drive down peakview and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees etc keep trying to do
that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this neighborhood that everyone bought in to
at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 32
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 16:36:53 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jdamweber@estes.org"
<jdamweber@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacpine@estes.org"
<bmacpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak-View drive
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those who have lived here
longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no regard from input from those who live
here. We just moved here when the whole mountain coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed
and got it then was voted out but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his actions except Frank and
everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same company for their entire
life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more people working remotely and take their 401ks
with them when they move on. Most don’t want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at a job. They are
waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles have you read about
national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as well. How many parks have instituted a lottery
or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the park would have a
park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking lot for instance nor have they increased
the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would
just ruin it for everyone. If you think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on committees etc but that
shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This neighborhood will never be the same and those who
come and visit will drive down peakview and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees etc keep trying to do
that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this neighborhood that everyone bought in to
at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 33
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 16:36:53 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jdamweber@estes.org"
<jdamweber@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacpine@estes.org"
<bmacpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak-View drive
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those who have lived here
longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no regard from input from those who live
here. We just moved here when the whole mountain coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed
and got it then was voted out but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his actions except Frank and
everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same company for their entire
life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more people working remotely and take their 401ks
with them when they move on. Most don’t want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at a job. They are
waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles have you read about
national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as well. How many parks have instituted a lottery
or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the park would have a
park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking lot for instance nor have they increased
the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would
just ruin it for everyone. If you think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on committees etc but that
shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This neighborhood will never be the same and those who
come and visit will drive down peakview and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees etc keep trying to do
that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this neighborhood that everyone bought in to
at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 34
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 16:36:53 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jdamweber@estes.org"
<jdamweber@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacpine@estes.org"
<bmacpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak-View drive
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those who have lived here
longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no regard from input from those who live
here. We just moved here when the whole mountain coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed
and got it then was voted out but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his actions except Frank and
everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same company for their entire
life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more people working remotely and take their 401ks
with them when they move on. Most don’t want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at a job. They are
waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles have you read about
national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as well. How many parks have instituted a lottery
or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the park would have a
park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking lot for instance nor have they increased
the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would
just ruin it for everyone. If you think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on committees etc but that
shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This neighborhood will never be the same and those who
come and visit will drive down peakview and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees etc keep trying to do
that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this neighborhood that everyone bought in to
at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 35
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 16:36:53 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jdamweber@estes.org"
<jdamweber@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacpine@estes.org"
<bmacpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak-View drive
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those who have lived here
longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no regard from input from those who live
here. We just moved here when the whole mountain coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed
and got it then was voted out but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his actions except Frank and
everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same company for their entire
life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more people working remotely and take their 401ks
with them when they move on. Most don’t want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at a job. They are
waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles have you read about
national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as well. How many parks have instituted a lottery
or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the park would have a
park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking lot for instance nor have they increased
the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would
just ruin it for everyone. If you think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on committees etc but that
shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This neighborhood will never be the same and those who
come and visit will drive down peakview and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees etc keep trying to do
that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this neighborhood that everyone bought in to
at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 36
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 16:36:53 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jdamweber@estes.org"
<jdamweber@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacpine@estes.org"
<bmacpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peak-View drive
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those who have lived here
longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no regard from input from those who live
here. We just moved here when the whole mountain coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed
and got it then was voted out but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his actions except Frank and
everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same company for their entire
life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more people working remotely and take their 401ks
with them when they move on. Most don’t want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at a job. They are
waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles have you read about
national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as well. How many parks have instituted a lottery
or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the park would have a
park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking lot for instance nor have they increased
the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would
just ruin it for everyone. If you think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on committees etc but that
shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This neighborhood will never be the same and those who
come and visit will drive down peakview and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees etc keep trying to do
that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this neighborhood that everyone bought in to
at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 37
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:56:47 +0000
To: "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Attachments: Town Board Letter.docx
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 38
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:56:47 +0000
To: "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Attachments: Town Board Letter.docx
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 39
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:56:47 +0000
To: "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Attachments: Town Board Letter.docx
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 40
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:56:47 +0000
To: "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Attachments: Town Board Letter.docx
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 41
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:56:47 +0000
To: "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Attachments: Town Board Letter.docx
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 42
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:56:47 +0000
To: "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Attachments: Town Board Letter.docx
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 43
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:56:47 +0000
To: "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Attachments: Town Board Letter.docx
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 44
LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO 685 PEAK VIEW REZONING Sept. 6, 2023
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members:
I’m wri�ng to help the Board to see this proposed rezoning from the eyes of the 110 members
of the Preserve Estes Park group, the adjacent property owners, and the 1,550+ residents and
visitors who have signed a pe��on in opposi�on to this rezoning.
Picture an old scale – a balance scale like Lady Jus�ce holds. On one side of the scale we have
Frank Thies, a developer whose interest seems to be to increase his profit. What is on the other
side of the scale? Hundreds of people who love Estes Park and who don’t want to see it
diminished by over-development. What are their concerns:
1)Traffic safety on a dangerous part of Peak View Drive
2)Poten�al drainage problems from too much impervious area on a steep site
3)Greatly increasing the fuel load for a wildfire
4)Developing a property in such a way as it renders it inhospitable to wildlife
5)Developing the property in a way that is not in character with the exis�ng neighborhood
And does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan which is supposed to be a guiding
document.
To summarize, what do we have? On one side we have one developer who, incidently, could
profit nicely by developing the land as it is currently zoned – but who instead -wants to rezone
to increase his profit. On the other side, hundreds of people who oppose the rezoning. It boils
down to this: There is no compelling reason to allow the rezoning, there are many reasons not
to allow it.
Everyone else has followed the rules, why give a single developer special treatment?
Respec�ully,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Estes Park
Page 45
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:17:49 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through a
high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house development. Don't
be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this current
zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
Page 46
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:35:31 -0600
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is still
illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it seems
Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-zoning the
rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing needs?. The harm
from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
Page 47
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:33 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is
continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and
the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
Page 48
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:06:18 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685
Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete
disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not
followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the
town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that
1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious attempt to
manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood
would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most
advantageous for all of Estes Park.
Nancy and Mike Curtiss
1263 Juniper Drive
Page 49
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:33 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is
continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and
the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
Page 50
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:28:54 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an
attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge you
to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of
state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple story
condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is changed
we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots
is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 51
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:17:49 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through a
high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house development. Don't
be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this current
zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
Page 52
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:35:31 -0600
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is still
illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it seems
Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-zoning the
rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing needs?. The harm
from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
Page 53
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:33 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is
continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and
the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
Page 54
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:06:18 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685
Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete
disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not
followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the
town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that
1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious attempt to
manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood
would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most
advantageous for all of Estes Park.
Nancy and Mike Curtiss
1263 Juniper Drive
Page 55
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:17:49 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through a
high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house development. Don't
be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this current
zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
Page 56
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:06:18 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685
Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete
disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not
followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the
town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that
1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious attempt to
manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood
would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most
advantageous for all of Estes Park.
Nancy and Mike Curtiss
1263 Juniper Drive
Page 57
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:06:18 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685
Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete
disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not
followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the
town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that
1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious attempt to
manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood
would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most
advantageous for all of Estes Park.
Nancy and Mike Curtiss
1263 Juniper Drive
Page 58
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:28:54 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an
attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge you
to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of
state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple story
condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is changed
we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots
is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 59
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:17:49 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through a
high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house development. Don't
be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this current
zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
Page 60
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:35:31 -0600
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is still
illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it seems
Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-zoning the
rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing needs?. The harm
from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
Page 61
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:33 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is
continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and
the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
Page 62
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:06:18 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685
Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete
disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not
followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the
town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that
1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious attempt to
manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood
would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most
advantageous for all of Estes Park.
Nancy and Mike Curtiss
1263 Juniper Drive
Page 63
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:33 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is
continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and
the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
Page 64
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:28:54 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an
attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge you
to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of
state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple story
condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is changed
we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots
is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 65
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:28:54 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an
attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge you
to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of
state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple story
condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is changed
we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots
is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 66
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:17:49 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through a
high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house development. Don't
be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this current
zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
Page 67
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:28:54 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an
attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge you
to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of
state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple story
condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is changed
we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots
is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 68
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:17:49 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through a
high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house development. Don't
be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this current
zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
Page 69
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:35:31 -0600
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is still
illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it seems
Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-zoning the
rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing needs?. The harm
from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
Page 70
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:33 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is
continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and
the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
Page 71
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:06:18 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685
Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete
disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not
followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the
town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that
1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious attempt to
manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood
would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most
advantageous for all of Estes Park.
Nancy and Mike Curtiss
1263 Juniper Drive
Page 72
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:35:31 -0600
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is still
illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it seems
Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-zoning the
rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing needs?. The harm
from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
Page 73
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:35:31 -0600
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is still
illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it seems
Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-zoning the
rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing needs?. The harm
from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
Page 74
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:28:54 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an
attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge you
to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of
state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple story
condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is changed
we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots
is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 75
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:17:49 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through a
high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house development. Don't
be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this current
zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
Page 76
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:35:31 -0600
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is still
illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it seems
Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-zoning the
rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing needs?. The harm
from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
Page 77
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:36:33 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is
continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and
the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
Page 78
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 09:06:18 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685
Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete
disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not
followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the
town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that
1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious attempt to
manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood
would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most
advantageous for all of Estes Park.
Nancy and Mike Curtiss
1263 Juniper Drive
Page 79
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:28:54 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Peakview
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in an
attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge you
to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out of
state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple story
condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is changed
we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre lots
is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 80
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:27:08 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this
at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 81
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:27:08 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this
at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 82
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:27:08 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this
at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 83
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:27:08 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this
at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 84
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:27:08 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this
at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 85
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:27:08 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this
at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 86
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:27:08 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this
at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 87
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:11:44 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new issue with 685 Peak View rezoning request
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Page 88
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:11:44 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new issue with 685 Peak View rezoning request
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Page 89
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:11:44 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new issue with 685 Peak View rezoning request
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Page 90
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:11:44 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new issue with 685 Peak View rezoning request
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Page 91
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:11:44 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new issue with 685 Peak View rezoning request
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Page 92
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:11:44 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new issue with 685 Peak View rezoning request
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Page 93
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:46:36 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 94
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:46:36 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 95
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:46:36 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 96
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:46:36 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 97
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:46:36 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 98
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:46:36 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org" <flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 99
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:41:12 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning
Many objections have been made against the 685 Peak View rezoning but remember there is a
large sum of money involved in this rezoning.
Originally, Mr. Theis wanted 39 lots for a quick resale which could have amounted to $3.9
million (at a minimum $100K a lot) from a $1.2 million dollar investment.
There was never intent of affordable or workforce housing in any of his plans until
"coached/advised" by planning staff or someone in theTown administration.
I don't believe the planning staff or "advisors" have maintained the proper arm's length
involvement with Frank Theis.
Nor have they followed proper procedures in the handling of his numerous plans and
applications.
In the business world this could be comparable to insider trading and should be investigated by
the Town Trustees.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr. Frank Theis, the developer, made the following
statement regarding this rezoning.
request, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well,
she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara looked at it and she said,
'Gee, I think it would
be better if you reduce it down to four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece,
would be the fourth
lot,' and so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and
it gets rid of this
weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre.'”
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property.
A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
It is interesting that with the latest application, the developer eliminated the open space, creating
larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
Furthermore, the "advice" concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code
requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five or more units.
Page 100
If this rezoning request is approved, there is nothing to stop the developer from submitting
sequential development plans for three units at a time,
avoiding the intent of the open space provision and change of conditions.
The latest is the acceptance of an improper and false application. Staking was not done
when the application was submitted.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3rd.
Mr. Theis stated that there would be another neighborhood meeting where he should answer
APO resident's questions (without leaving the meeting after 17 minutes).
The sudden resignations of two key Planning staff/commission members puts the movement
forward on this rezoning questionable, especially without a quorum.
A rush by Director Garner to fill these vacant positions should not be condoned by the Trustees
or the Town administration, just to push the rezoning through the system.
All candidates should be required to fully read the Estes Park Development Code, the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan and
ALL of the related public comments to the rezoning of 685 Peak View and the numerous
applications.
I am still in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View, but now even more so as these facts
and issues have come into question.
Jackie Adams
565 A Devon Drive
Page 101
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:41:12 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning
Many objections have been made against the 685 Peak View rezoning but remember there is a
large sum of money involved in this rezoning.
Originally, Mr. Theis wanted 39 lots for a quick resale which could have amounted to $3.9
million (at a minimum $100K a lot) from a $1.2 million dollar investment.
There was never intent of affordable or workforce housing in any of his plans until
"coached/advised" by planning staff or someone in theTown administration.
I don't believe the planning staff or "advisors" have maintained the proper arm's length
involvement with Frank Theis.
Nor have they followed proper procedures in the handling of his numerous plans and
applications.
In the business world this could be comparable to insider trading and should be investigated by
the Town Trustees.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr. Frank Theis, the developer, made the following
statement regarding this rezoning.
request, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well,
she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara looked at it and she said,
'Gee, I think it would
be better if you reduce it down to four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece,
would be the fourth
lot,' and so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and
it gets rid of this
weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre.'”
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property.
A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
It is interesting that with the latest application, the developer eliminated the open space, creating
larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
Furthermore, the "advice" concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code
requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five or more units.
Page 102
If this rezoning request is approved, there is nothing to stop the developer from submitting
sequential development plans for three units at a time,
avoiding the intent of the open space provision and change of conditions.
The latest is the acceptance of an improper and false application. Staking was not done
when the application was submitted.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3rd.
Mr. Theis stated that there would be another neighborhood meeting where he should answer
APO resident's questions (without leaving the meeting after 17 minutes).
The sudden resignations of two key Planning staff/commission members puts the movement
forward on this rezoning questionable, especially without a quorum.
A rush by Director Garner to fill these vacant positions should not be condoned by the Trustees
or the Town administration, just to push the rezoning through the system.
All candidates should be required to fully read the Estes Park Development Code, the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan and
ALL of the related public comments to the rezoning of 685 Peak View and the numerous
applications.
I am still in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View, but now even more so as these facts
and issues have come into question.
Jackie Adams
565 A Devon Drive
Page 103
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:41:12 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning
Many objections have been made against the 685 Peak View rezoning but remember there is a
large sum of money involved in this rezoning.
Originally, Mr. Theis wanted 39 lots for a quick resale which could have amounted to $3.9
million (at a minimum $100K a lot) from a $1.2 million dollar investment.
There was never intent of affordable or workforce housing in any of his plans until
"coached/advised" by planning staff or someone in theTown administration.
I don't believe the planning staff or "advisors" have maintained the proper arm's length
involvement with Frank Theis.
Nor have they followed proper procedures in the handling of his numerous plans and
applications.
In the business world this could be comparable to insider trading and should be investigated by
the Town Trustees.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr. Frank Theis, the developer, made the following
statement regarding this rezoning.
request, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well,
she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara looked at it and she said,
'Gee, I think it would
be better if you reduce it down to four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece,
would be the fourth
lot,' and so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and
it gets rid of this
weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre.'”
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property.
A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
It is interesting that with the latest application, the developer eliminated the open space, creating
larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
Furthermore, the "advice" concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code
requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five or more units.
Page 104
If this rezoning request is approved, there is nothing to stop the developer from submitting
sequential development plans for three units at a time,
avoiding the intent of the open space provision and change of conditions.
The latest is the acceptance of an improper and false application. Staking was not done
when the application was submitted.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3rd.
Mr. Theis stated that there would be another neighborhood meeting where he should answer
APO resident's questions (without leaving the meeting after 17 minutes).
The sudden resignations of two key Planning staff/commission members puts the movement
forward on this rezoning questionable, especially without a quorum.
A rush by Director Garner to fill these vacant positions should not be condoned by the Trustees
or the Town administration, just to push the rezoning through the system.
All candidates should be required to fully read the Estes Park Development Code, the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan and
ALL of the related public comments to the rezoning of 685 Peak View and the numerous
applications.
I am still in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View, but now even more so as these facts
and issues have come into question.
Jackie Adams
565 A Devon Drive
Page 105
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:41:12 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning
Many objections have been made against the 685 Peak View rezoning but remember there is a
large sum of money involved in this rezoning.
Originally, Mr. Theis wanted 39 lots for a quick resale which could have amounted to $3.9
million (at a minimum $100K a lot) from a $1.2 million dollar investment.
There was never intent of affordable or workforce housing in any of his plans until
"coached/advised" by planning staff or someone in theTown administration.
I don't believe the planning staff or "advisors" have maintained the proper arm's length
involvement with Frank Theis.
Nor have they followed proper procedures in the handling of his numerous plans and
applications.
In the business world this could be comparable to insider trading and should be investigated by
the Town Trustees.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr. Frank Theis, the developer, made the following
statement regarding this rezoning.
request, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well,
she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara looked at it and she said,
'Gee, I think it would
be better if you reduce it down to four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece,
would be the fourth
lot,' and so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and
it gets rid of this
weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre.'”
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property.
A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
It is interesting that with the latest application, the developer eliminated the open space, creating
larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
Furthermore, the "advice" concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code
requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five or more units.
Page 106
If this rezoning request is approved, there is nothing to stop the developer from submitting
sequential development plans for three units at a time,
avoiding the intent of the open space provision and change of conditions.
The latest is the acceptance of an improper and false application. Staking was not done
when the application was submitted.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3rd.
Mr. Theis stated that there would be another neighborhood meeting where he should answer
APO resident's questions (without leaving the meeting after 17 minutes).
The sudden resignations of two key Planning staff/commission members puts the movement
forward on this rezoning questionable, especially without a quorum.
A rush by Director Garner to fill these vacant positions should not be condoned by the Trustees
or the Town administration, just to push the rezoning through the system.
All candidates should be required to fully read the Estes Park Development Code, the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan and
ALL of the related public comments to the rezoning of 685 Peak View and the numerous
applications.
I am still in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View, but now even more so as these facts
and issues have come into question.
Jackie Adams
565 A Devon Drive
Page 107
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:41:12 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning
Many objections have been made against the 685 Peak View rezoning but remember there is a
large sum of money involved in this rezoning.
Originally, Mr. Theis wanted 39 lots for a quick resale which could have amounted to $3.9
million (at a minimum $100K a lot) from a $1.2 million dollar investment.
There was never intent of affordable or workforce housing in any of his plans until
"coached/advised" by planning staff or someone in theTown administration.
I don't believe the planning staff or "advisors" have maintained the proper arm's length
involvement with Frank Theis.
Nor have they followed proper procedures in the handling of his numerous plans and
applications.
In the business world this could be comparable to insider trading and should be investigated by
the Town Trustees.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr. Frank Theis, the developer, made the following
statement regarding this rezoning.
request, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well,
she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara looked at it and she said,
'Gee, I think it would
be better if you reduce it down to four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece,
would be the fourth
lot,' and so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and
it gets rid of this
weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre.'”
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property.
A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
It is interesting that with the latest application, the developer eliminated the open space, creating
larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
Furthermore, the "advice" concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code
requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five or more units.
Page 108
If this rezoning request is approved, there is nothing to stop the developer from submitting
sequential development plans for three units at a time,
avoiding the intent of the open space provision and change of conditions.
The latest is the acceptance of an improper and false application. Staking was not done
when the application was submitted.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3rd.
Mr. Theis stated that there would be another neighborhood meeting where he should answer
APO resident's questions (without leaving the meeting after 17 minutes).
The sudden resignations of two key Planning staff/commission members puts the movement
forward on this rezoning questionable, especially without a quorum.
A rush by Director Garner to fill these vacant positions should not be condoned by the Trustees
or the Town administration, just to push the rezoning through the system.
All candidates should be required to fully read the Estes Park Development Code, the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan and
ALL of the related public comments to the rezoning of 685 Peak View and the numerous
applications.
I am still in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View, but now even more so as these facts
and issues have come into question.
Jackie Adams
565 A Devon Drive
Page 109
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:41:12 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning
Many objections have been made against the 685 Peak View rezoning but remember there is a
large sum of money involved in this rezoning.
Originally, Mr. Theis wanted 39 lots for a quick resale which could have amounted to $3.9
million (at a minimum $100K a lot) from a $1.2 million dollar investment.
There was never intent of affordable or workforce housing in any of his plans until
"coached/advised" by planning staff or someone in theTown administration.
I don't believe the planning staff or "advisors" have maintained the proper arm's length
involvement with Frank Theis.
Nor have they followed proper procedures in the handling of his numerous plans and
applications.
In the business world this could be comparable to insider trading and should be investigated by
the Town Trustees.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr. Frank Theis, the developer, made the following
statement regarding this rezoning.
request, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well,
she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara looked at it and she said,
'Gee, I think it would
be better if you reduce it down to four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece,
would be the fourth
lot,' and so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and
it gets rid of this
weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre.'”
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property.
A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
It is interesting that with the latest application, the developer eliminated the open space, creating
larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
Furthermore, the "advice" concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code
requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five or more units.
Page 110
If this rezoning request is approved, there is nothing to stop the developer from submitting
sequential development plans for three units at a time,
avoiding the intent of the open space provision and change of conditions.
The latest is the acceptance of an improper and false application. Staking was not done
when the application was submitted.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3rd.
Mr. Theis stated that there would be another neighborhood meeting where he should answer
APO resident's questions (without leaving the meeting after 17 minutes).
The sudden resignations of two key Planning staff/commission members puts the movement
forward on this rezoning questionable, especially without a quorum.
A rush by Director Garner to fill these vacant positions should not be condoned by the Trustees
or the Town administration, just to push the rezoning through the system.
All candidates should be required to fully read the Estes Park Development Code, the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan and
ALL of the related public comments to the rezoning of 685 Peak View and the numerous
applications.
I am still in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View, but now even more so as these facts
and issues have come into question.
Jackie Adams
565 A Devon Drive
Page 111
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:41:12 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning
Many objections have been made against the 685 Peak View rezoning but remember there is a
large sum of money involved in this rezoning.
Originally, Mr. Theis wanted 39 lots for a quick resale which could have amounted to $3.9
million (at a minimum $100K a lot) from a $1.2 million dollar investment.
There was never intent of affordable or workforce housing in any of his plans until
"coached/advised" by planning staff or someone in theTown administration.
I don't believe the planning staff or "advisors" have maintained the proper arm's length
involvement with Frank Theis.
Nor have they followed proper procedures in the handling of his numerous plans and
applications.
In the business world this could be comparable to insider trading and should be investigated by
the Town Trustees.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr. Frank Theis, the developer, made the following
statement regarding this rezoning.
request, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well,
she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara looked at it and she said,
'Gee, I think it would
be better if you reduce it down to four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece,
would be the fourth
lot,' and so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and
it gets rid of this
weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre.'”
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property.
A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
It is interesting that with the latest application, the developer eliminated the open space, creating
larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
Furthermore, the "advice" concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code
requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five or more units.
Page 112
If this rezoning request is approved, there is nothing to stop the developer from submitting
sequential development plans for three units at a time,
avoiding the intent of the open space provision and change of conditions.
The latest is the acceptance of an improper and false application. Staking was not done
when the application was submitted.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3rd.
Mr. Theis stated that there would be another neighborhood meeting where he should answer
APO resident's questions (without leaving the meeting after 17 minutes).
The sudden resignations of two key Planning staff/commission members puts the movement
forward on this rezoning questionable, especially without a quorum.
A rush by Director Garner to fill these vacant positions should not be condoned by the Trustees
or the Town administration, just to push the rezoning through the system.
All candidates should be required to fully read the Estes Park Development Code, the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan and
ALL of the related public comments to the rezoning of 685 Peak View and the numerous
applications.
I am still in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View, but now even more so as these facts
and issues have come into question.
Jackie Adams
565 A Devon Drive
Page 113
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Sent: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Attachments: details.txt, Re: Rezoning
Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to Earlearlene@beyondbb.com because the
address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
The response from the remote server was:
550 5.1.1 [R2] Recipient Earlearlene@beyondbb.com does not exist here.
Page 114
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 20:58:53 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
Good evening Laura,
I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at the Planning Commission
Meeting. I want to thank you again for bringing this to the table at the trustee outreach meeting
last Thursday at Town Hall.
The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the withdrawal of the
application. The withdrawal was acknowledged and approved by the Board without asking for
public comment after the item was read by the Chair. . The moment Chair Comstock asked for
the acknowledgment and there was no objection from Planning Commission members, the item
was technically officially removed from the agenda and any discussion. That removal formally
activated the new application that had been submitted to replace the application that was
removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the replacement applications' existence.
This is why he counseled not to allow comment once the item was verified as removed from
further discussion and action by the Planning Commission.
There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the meeting. you attended. No
further public comment could be taken for the item that had been removed by the Board. Your
comments, if made after the acknowledgement of the 685 application removal would have fallen
into the category of "Ex Parte Communication".
I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee MacAlpine and confirmed the
information about the sequence of events from her.
I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I have chaired. I certainly
learned from looking into this. In your situation, I too would have felt very upset.
Please consider attending the next Planning Commission Meeting. You may speak at the
beginning of the meeting as a non-agenda item comment if 685 Peakview is not printed on the
agenda. If there is an agenda item regarding 685 Peak view on the meeting agenda, you will be
allowed to speak.when public comment is taken in the hearing.
It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is adequate. Importantly, I hope
you will return to make your important comments. As always you may email them to the
Planning Commission Board directly.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
Page 115
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 116
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 20:58:53 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Matt Comstock" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
Good evening Laura,
I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at the Planning Commission
Meeting. I want to thank you again for bringing this to the table at the trustee outreach meeting
last Thursday at Town Hall.
The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the withdrawal of the
application. The withdrawal was acknowledged and approved by the Board without asking for
public comment after the item was read by the Chair. . The moment Chair Comstock asked for
the acknowledgment and there was no objection from Planning Commission members, the item
was technically officially removed from the agenda and any discussion. That removal formally
activated the new application that had been submitted to replace the application that was
removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the replacement applications' existence.
This is why he counseled not to allow comment once the item was verified as removed from
further discussion and action by the Planning Commission.
There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the meeting. you attended. No
further public comment could be taken for the item that had been removed by the Board. Your
comments, if made after the acknowledgement of the 685 application removal would have fallen
into the category of "Ex Parte Communication".
I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee MacAlpine and confirmed the
information about the sequence of events from her.
I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I have chaired. I certainly
learned from looking into this. In your situation, I too would have felt very upset.
Please consider attending the next Planning Commission Meeting. You may speak at the
beginning of the meeting as a non-agenda item comment if 685 Peakview is not printed on the
agenda. If there is an agenda item regarding 685 Peak view on the meeting agenda, you will be
allowed to speak.when public comment is taken in the hearing.
It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is adequate. Importantly, I hope
you will return to make your important comments. As always you may email them to the
Planning Commission Board directly.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
Page 117
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 118
From: T&J White <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:09:03 -0600
To: "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"flancaster@estes.orgwkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Estes Park neighborhood zones
To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners
We are writing to urge you to DENY any changes to neighborhood zone regulations.
The beauty of Estes Park is open space. People escape the heat of the city and enjoy walking in nature,
cool temperatures, and space to just breathe. If you start to allow or encourage development, Estes
could become a Boulder, Denver or Loveland and lose its uniqueness. More traffic. More
pollution. More heat. Don’t let greedy developers take away the beauty and peace of Estes Park.
Concrete is a known pollutant and adds heat to the surrounding neighborhood.
https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact Wood
housing is a fire hazard. More cars will pollute our fresh air. When we have a world that is burning up,
why would you EVER consider selling out the gem of Estes Park to a developer who will take his money
and run? https://www.reuters.com/world/world-registers-hottest-day-ever-recorded-july-3-2023-07-
04/
Estes does not need more construction of houses that are seldom lived in. What Estes needs is open
space with a vibrant hotel business and planned neighborhoods for seasonal workers. Please, as
Trustee’s of the city, don’t sell out to developers. It’s actually appalling to us that you would
even consider the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning, given its opposition. Please, do your job and protect
Estes from over development and rezoning requests.
With respect –
Joan & Tim White
Estes Park, CO
Page 119
From: T&J White <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:09:03 -0600
To: "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"flancaster@estes.orgwkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Estes Park neighborhood zones
To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners
We are writing to urge you to DENY any changes to neighborhood zone regulations.
The beauty of Estes Park is open space. People escape the heat of the city and enjoy walking in nature,
cool temperatures, and space to just breathe. If you start to allow or encourage development, Estes
could become a Boulder, Denver or Loveland and lose its uniqueness. More traffic. More
pollution. More heat. Don’t let greedy developers take away the beauty and peace of Estes Park.
Concrete is a known pollutant and adds heat to the surrounding neighborhood.
https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact Wood
housing is a fire hazard. More cars will pollute our fresh air. When we have a world that is burning up,
why would you EVER consider selling out the gem of Estes Park to a developer who will take his money
and run? https://www.reuters.com/world/world-registers-hottest-day-ever-recorded-july-3-2023-07-
04/
Estes does not need more construction of houses that are seldom lived in. What Estes needs is open
space with a vibrant hotel business and planned neighborhoods for seasonal workers. Please, as
Trustee’s of the city, don’t sell out to developers. It’s actually appalling to us that you would
even consider the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning, given its opposition. Please, do your job and protect
Estes from over development and rezoning requests.
With respect –
Joan & Tim White
Estes Park, CO
Page 120
From: T&J White <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:09:03 -0600
To: "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"flancaster@estes.orgwkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Estes Park neighborhood zones
To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners
We are writing to urge you to DENY any changes to neighborhood zone regulations.
The beauty of Estes Park is open space. People escape the heat of the city and enjoy walking in nature,
cool temperatures, and space to just breathe. If you start to allow or encourage development, Estes
could become a Boulder, Denver or Loveland and lose its uniqueness. More traffic. More
pollution. More heat. Don’t let greedy developers take away the beauty and peace of Estes Park.
Concrete is a known pollutant and adds heat to the surrounding neighborhood.
https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact Wood
housing is a fire hazard. More cars will pollute our fresh air. When we have a world that is burning up,
why would you EVER consider selling out the gem of Estes Park to a developer who will take his money
and run? https://www.reuters.com/world/world-registers-hottest-day-ever-recorded-july-3-2023-07-
04/
Estes does not need more construction of houses that are seldom lived in. What Estes needs is open
space with a vibrant hotel business and planned neighborhoods for seasonal workers. Please, as
Trustee’s of the city, don’t sell out to developers. It’s actually appalling to us that you would
even consider the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning, given its opposition. Please, do your job and protect
Estes from over development and rezoning requests.
With respect –
Joan & Tim White
Estes Park, CO
Page 121
From: T&J White <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:09:03 -0600
To: "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"flancaster@estes.orgwkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Estes Park neighborhood zones
To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners
We are writing to urge you to DENY any changes to neighborhood zone regulations.
The beauty of Estes Park is open space. People escape the heat of the city and enjoy walking in nature,
cool temperatures, and space to just breathe. If you start to allow or encourage development, Estes
could become a Boulder, Denver or Loveland and lose its uniqueness. More traffic. More
pollution. More heat. Don’t let greedy developers take away the beauty and peace of Estes Park.
Concrete is a known pollutant and adds heat to the surrounding neighborhood.
https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact Wood
housing is a fire hazard. More cars will pollute our fresh air. When we have a world that is burning up,
why would you EVER consider selling out the gem of Estes Park to a developer who will take his money
and run? https://www.reuters.com/world/world-registers-hottest-day-ever-recorded-july-3-2023-07-
04/
Estes does not need more construction of houses that are seldom lived in. What Estes needs is open
space with a vibrant hotel business and planned neighborhoods for seasonal workers. Please, as
Trustee’s of the city, don’t sell out to developers. It’s actually appalling to us that you would
even consider the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning, given its opposition. Please, do your job and protect
Estes from over development and rezoning requests.
With respect –
Joan & Tim White
Estes Park, CO
Page 122
From: T&J White <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:09:03 -0600
To: "To: Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"flancaster@estes.orgwkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Estes Park neighborhood zones
To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners
We are writing to urge you to DENY any changes to neighborhood zone regulations.
The beauty of Estes Park is open space. People escape the heat of the city and enjoy walking in nature,
cool temperatures, and space to just breathe. If you start to allow or encourage development, Estes
could become a Boulder, Denver or Loveland and lose its uniqueness. More traffic. More
pollution. More heat. Don’t let greedy developers take away the beauty and peace of Estes Park.
Concrete is a known pollutant and adds heat to the surrounding neighborhood.
https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact Wood
housing is a fire hazard. More cars will pollute our fresh air. When we have a world that is burning up,
why would you EVER consider selling out the gem of Estes Park to a developer who will take his money
and run? https://www.reuters.com/world/world-registers-hottest-day-ever-recorded-july-3-2023-07-
04/
Estes does not need more construction of houses that are seldom lived in. What Estes needs is open
space with a vibrant hotel business and planned neighborhoods for seasonal workers. Please, as
Trustee’s of the city, don’t sell out to developers. It’s actually appalling to us that you would
even consider the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning, given its opposition. Please, do your job and protect
Estes from over development and rezoning requests.
With respect –
Joan & Tim White
Estes Park, CO
Page 123
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:47:14 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at the
last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict with
future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of Fortune
attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 124
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:47:14 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at the
last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict with
future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of Fortune
attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 125
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:47:14 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at the
last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict with
future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of Fortune
attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 126
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:47:14 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at the
last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict with
future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of Fortune
attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 127
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:47:14 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at the
last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict with
future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of Fortune
attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 128
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:47:14 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at the
last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict with
future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of Fortune
attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 129
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:47:14 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at the
last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict with
future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of Fortune
attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 130
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 16:46:22 +0000
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: Fwd: 685 Peak-View drive
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Date: September 3, 2023 at 8:36:54 AM AKDT
To: planning@estes.org, jdamweber@estes.org, tmachalek@estes.org,
khazelton@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, bmacpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Subject: 685 Peak-View drive
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded
by those who have lived here longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is
gonna do” with no regard from input from those who live here. We just moved here
when the whole mountain coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning
changed and got it then was voted out but they ended up getting what they wanted
anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit
from his actions except Frank and everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for
the same company for their entire life to save and make a plan for the
future. Nowadays there are more people working remotely and take their 401ks
with them when they move on. Most don’t want a huge mortgage or to stay in one
place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing
to stay at a job. They are waiting for the next opportunity and will then move
on. That’s the way I see it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many
articles have you read about national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP
but others as well. How many parks have instituted a lottery or reservation system
to get in?
Page 131
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those
visiting the park would have a park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of
the bear lake parking lot for instance nor have they increased the number of
backcountry sites either. I’m sure they would like to have the extra revenue etc but
doing that would just ruin it for everyone. If you think the lines are long now can
you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer
time etc on committees etc but that shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants
to do. This neighborhood will never be the same and those who come and visit will
drive down peakview and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and
trustees etc keep trying to do that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is
no need to ruin this neighborhood that everyone bought in to at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 132
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:49:07 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Fwd: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, <khazelton@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, <pmartchink@estes.org>,
<jgarner@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>, To: Community Development
<Planning@estes.org>, <flancaster@estes.org>, <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 133
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 15:38:08 -0600
To: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Fwd: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Please respond to Laura Rustin. Mayor
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM
Subject: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, <khazelton@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, <pmartchink@estes.org>,
<jgarner@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>, To: Community Development
<Planning@estes.org>, <flancaster@estes.org>, <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at the
Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this project. There
MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at this time? It
became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process really has to start
all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process started,
he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 134
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 135
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 19:17:09 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Fwd: Please represent your citizens!!!
Hope the email address discrepancies can be resolved for communication.
Thanks —-
r & vp
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Please represent your citizens!!!
To: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Thank you Vicki and Ricky!
FYI Trustee Lancaster's email is different.
It is franklancaster@estes.org
I was told it is his whole first name to differentiate from when he was Town Administrator.
Had hoped to see you at the Farmer's Market tomorrow to no avail.
I have a commitment that I cannot change.
I will be there next week.
Hopefully others will show up tomorrow though no one replied 🙁.
People are busy.
I understand.
With thanks, again,
KLP
PEP STRONG!!!
PS I presume that you like our ad this week???
Page 136
Page 137
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 6:28 PM
To: Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>; Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>; Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>; bmacalpine@estes.org
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; flancaster@estes.org <flancaster@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org
<khazelton@estes.org>; planning@estes.org <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 138
Page 139
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 140
From: baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:43:04 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: In opposition to the rezoning request for 685 Peak View Dr
To whom it may concern,
Please consider a few facts before making your recommendations for the rezoning and subdivision of
685 Peak view drive.
1. Global warming, overpopulation, continuing degradation of the water we drink and the air we
breathe.
2. The vast majority of guests and residents of Estes Park do not want to lose this towns unique
qualities and become like other overcrowded, not advised to breath the air in, town and city.
3. 685 Peak View Dr was a poor site selection for a rezoning request due to lack of access with zero
possibility for the development of arterial streets. One way in, one way out!
4. Any comparison of this proposal to surrounding neighborhoods is both disingenuous and an insult to
the people that live here.
This only highlights a few of the contentions that has ignited the growing mass opposition to the
rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr.
Thank you,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 141
From: baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:43:04 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: In opposition to the rezoning request for 685 Peak View Dr
To whom it may concern,
Please consider a few facts before making your recommendations for the rezoning and subdivision of
685 Peak view drive.
1. Global warming, overpopulation, continuing degradation of the water we drink and the air we
breathe.
2. The vast majority of guests and residents of Estes Park do not want to lose this towns unique
qualities and become like other overcrowded, not advised to breath the air in, town and city.
3. 685 Peak View Dr was a poor site selection for a rezoning request due to lack of access with zero
possibility for the development of arterial streets. One way in, one way out!
4. Any comparison of this proposal to surrounding neighborhoods is both disingenuous and an insult to
the people that live here.
This only highlights a few of the contentions that has ignited the growing mass opposition to the
rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr.
Thank you,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 142
From: baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:43:04 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: In opposition to the rezoning request for 685 Peak View Dr
To whom it may concern,
Please consider a few facts before making your recommendations for the rezoning and subdivision of
685 Peak view drive.
1. Global warming, overpopulation, continuing degradation of the water we drink and the air we
breathe.
2. The vast majority of guests and residents of Estes Park do not want to lose this towns unique
qualities and become like other overcrowded, not advised to breath the air in, town and city.
3. 685 Peak View Dr was a poor site selection for a rezoning request due to lack of access with zero
possibility for the development of arterial streets. One way in, one way out!
4. Any comparison of this proposal to surrounding neighborhoods is both disingenuous and an insult to
the people that live here.
This only highlights a few of the contentions that has ignited the growing mass opposition to the
rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr.
Thank you,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 143
From: baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:43:04 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: In opposition to the rezoning request for 685 Peak View Dr
To whom it may concern,
Please consider a few facts before making your recommendations for the rezoning and subdivision of
685 Peak view drive.
1. Global warming, overpopulation, continuing degradation of the water we drink and the air we
breathe.
2. The vast majority of guests and residents of Estes Park do not want to lose this towns unique
qualities and become like other overcrowded, not advised to breath the air in, town and city.
3. 685 Peak View Dr was a poor site selection for a rezoning request due to lack of access with zero
possibility for the development of arterial streets. One way in, one way out!
4. Any comparison of this proposal to surrounding neighborhoods is both disingenuous and an insult to
the people that live here.
This only highlights a few of the contentions that has ignited the growing mass opposition to the
rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr.
Thank you,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 144
From: baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:43:04 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: In opposition to the rezoning request for 685 Peak View Dr
To whom it may concern,
Please consider a few facts before making your recommendations for the rezoning and subdivision of
685 Peak view drive.
1. Global warming, overpopulation, continuing degradation of the water we drink and the air we
breathe.
2. The vast majority of guests and residents of Estes Park do not want to lose this towns unique
qualities and become like other overcrowded, not advised to breath the air in, town and city.
3. 685 Peak View Dr was a poor site selection for a rezoning request due to lack of access with zero
possibility for the development of arterial streets. One way in, one way out!
4. Any comparison of this proposal to surrounding neighborhoods is both disingenuous and an insult to
the people that live here.
This only highlights a few of the contentions that has ignited the growing mass opposition to the
rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr.
Thank you,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 145
From: baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:43:04 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: In opposition to the rezoning request for 685 Peak View Dr
To whom it may concern,
Please consider a few facts before making your recommendations for the rezoning and subdivision of
685 Peak view drive.
1. Global warming, overpopulation, continuing degradation of the water we drink and the air we
breathe.
2. The vast majority of guests and residents of Estes Park do not want to lose this towns unique
qualities and become like other overcrowded, not advised to breath the air in, town and city.
3. 685 Peak View Dr was a poor site selection for a rezoning request due to lack of access with zero
possibility for the development of arterial streets. One way in, one way out!
4. Any comparison of this proposal to surrounding neighborhoods is both disingenuous and an insult to
the people that live here.
This only highlights a few of the contentions that has ignited the growing mass opposition to the
rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr.
Thank you,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 146
From: Carol Peterson <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:59:40 -0600
To: "Planning@estes.org" <Planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
Carol Peterson
570 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department
Estes Park Planning Commission
I strongly recommend disapproval of Frank Theis request for rezoning 1.75 acres of
685 Peak View from E-1 to E. Mr. Theis's most recent plan has three 1/2 half acre
lots with the remaining 5.87 acres containing an existing home.
Based on his previous requests for rezoning 685 Peak View, I feel it is unlikely that
this will be his last request for rezoning this property. I strongly object to high
density zoning on this property that is adjacent to my own property at 570 Devon and
in my community of estate lots. I feel that this request for rezoning is step one of a
plan to achieve his original goal and plan for a high density build.
Mr. Frank Theis’s current plan should be denied by the planning commission. It is a
blatant attempt to by-pass zoning restrictions and guidelines. Would the planning
commission of New York City approve a plan for an apartment complex of three
stories on plans submitted for just the first floor? This is Mr. Theis’s plan for the first
floor - let us see the whole plan before marching down the rezoning road of no
return.
I strongly recommend disapproval of rezoning 1.75 acres of 685 Peak View from E-1
to E.
Very respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Peterson CAPT, USN, Retired
Page 147
From: Carol Peterson <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:59:40 -0600
To: "Planning@estes.org" <Planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
Carol Peterson
570 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department
Estes Park Planning Commission
I strongly recommend disapproval of Frank Theis request for rezoning 1.75 acres of
685 Peak View from E-1 to E. Mr. Theis's most recent plan has three 1/2 half acre
lots with the remaining 5.87 acres containing an existing home.
Based on his previous requests for rezoning 685 Peak View, I feel it is unlikely that
this will be his last request for rezoning this property. I strongly object to high
density zoning on this property that is adjacent to my own property at 570 Devon and
in my community of estate lots. I feel that this request for rezoning is step one of a
plan to achieve his original goal and plan for a high density build.
Mr. Frank Theis’s current plan should be denied by the planning commission. It is a
blatant attempt to by-pass zoning restrictions and guidelines. Would the planning
commission of New York City approve a plan for an apartment complex of three
stories on plans submitted for just the first floor? This is Mr. Theis’s plan for the first
floor - let us see the whole plan before marching down the rezoning road of no
return.
I strongly recommend disapproval of rezoning 1.75 acres of 685 Peak View from E-1
to E.
Very respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Peterson CAPT, USN, Retired
Page 148
From: Carol Peterson <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:59:40 -0600
To: "Planning@estes.org" <Planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
Carol Peterson
570 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department
Estes Park Planning Commission
I strongly recommend disapproval of Frank Theis request for rezoning 1.75 acres of
685 Peak View from E-1 to E. Mr. Theis's most recent plan has three 1/2 half acre
lots with the remaining 5.87 acres containing an existing home.
Based on his previous requests for rezoning 685 Peak View, I feel it is unlikely that
this will be his last request for rezoning this property. I strongly object to high
density zoning on this property that is adjacent to my own property at 570 Devon and
in my community of estate lots. I feel that this request for rezoning is step one of a
plan to achieve his original goal and plan for a high density build.
Mr. Frank Theis’s current plan should be denied by the planning commission. It is a
blatant attempt to by-pass zoning restrictions and guidelines. Would the planning
commission of New York City approve a plan for an apartment complex of three
stories on plans submitted for just the first floor? This is Mr. Theis’s plan for the first
floor - let us see the whole plan before marching down the rezoning road of no
return.
I strongly recommend disapproval of rezoning 1.75 acres of 685 Peak View from E-1
to E.
Very respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Peterson CAPT, USN, Retired
Page 149
From: Carol Peterson <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:59:40 -0600
To: "Planning@estes.org" <Planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
Carol Peterson
570 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department
Estes Park Planning Commission
I strongly recommend disapproval of Frank Theis request for rezoning 1.75 acres of
685 Peak View from E-1 to E. Mr. Theis's most recent plan has three 1/2 half acre
lots with the remaining 5.87 acres containing an existing home.
Based on his previous requests for rezoning 685 Peak View, I feel it is unlikely that
this will be his last request for rezoning this property. I strongly object to high
density zoning on this property that is adjacent to my own property at 570 Devon and
in my community of estate lots. I feel that this request for rezoning is step one of a
plan to achieve his original goal and plan for a high density build.
Mr. Frank Theis’s current plan should be denied by the planning commission. It is a
blatant attempt to by-pass zoning restrictions and guidelines. Would the planning
commission of New York City approve a plan for an apartment complex of three
stories on plans submitted for just the first floor? This is Mr. Theis’s plan for the first
floor - let us see the whole plan before marching down the rezoning road of no
return.
I strongly recommend disapproval of rezoning 1.75 acres of 685 Peak View from E-1
to E.
Very respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Peterson CAPT, USN, Retired
Page 150
From: Carol Peterson <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:59:40 -0600
To: "Planning@estes.org" <Planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
Carol Peterson
570 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department
Estes Park Planning Commission
I strongly recommend disapproval of Frank Theis request for rezoning 1.75 acres of
685 Peak View from E-1 to E. Mr. Theis's most recent plan has three 1/2 half acre
lots with the remaining 5.87 acres containing an existing home.
Based on his previous requests for rezoning 685 Peak View, I feel it is unlikely that
this will be his last request for rezoning this property. I strongly object to high
density zoning on this property that is adjacent to my own property at 570 Devon and
in my community of estate lots. I feel that this request for rezoning is step one of a
plan to achieve his original goal and plan for a high density build.
Mr. Frank Theis’s current plan should be denied by the planning commission. It is a
blatant attempt to by-pass zoning restrictions and guidelines. Would the planning
commission of New York City approve a plan for an apartment complex of three
stories on plans submitted for just the first floor? This is Mr. Theis’s plan for the first
floor - let us see the whole plan before marching down the rezoning road of no
return.
I strongly recommend disapproval of rezoning 1.75 acres of 685 Peak View from E-1
to E.
Very respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Peterson CAPT, USN, Retired
Page 151
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:22:30 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for
685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of
writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight
(September 11) had to be canceled and postponed because once again the developer did not meet
the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He has also announced that he will not
attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are
sure to be asked? Neighbors have repeatedly asked if there is going to be an HOA for the
proposed developed area. We have received different answers on different occasions. The major
question about future development of the larger part of the parcel have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the
citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the
rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER
Director of the Community Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions
about the various applications related to 685 Peak View, and stated that the CDD was 'satisfied'
with the application.
The Town Attorney also made major efforts to shut down various avenues of discussion.
There is a memo from the Public Works Department clearly listing issues that needed to be
addressed. Were this all addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the
deciders! The citizens have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they
are not being heard.
Page 152
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then
ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 153
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:22:30 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for
685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of
writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight
(September 11) had to be canceled and postponed because once again the developer did not meet
the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He has also announced that he will not
attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are
sure to be asked? Neighbors have repeatedly asked if there is going to be an HOA for the
proposed developed area. We have received different answers on different occasions. The major
question about future development of the larger part of the parcel have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the
citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the
rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER
Director of the Community Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions
about the various applications related to 685 Peak View, and stated that the CDD was 'satisfied'
with the application.
The Town Attorney also made major efforts to shut down various avenues of discussion.
There is a memo from the Public Works Department clearly listing issues that needed to be
addressed. Were this all addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the
deciders! The citizens have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they
are not being heard.
Page 154
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then
ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 155
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:22:30 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for
685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of
writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight
(September 11) had to be canceled and postponed because once again the developer did not meet
the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He has also announced that he will not
attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are
sure to be asked? Neighbors have repeatedly asked if there is going to be an HOA for the
proposed developed area. We have received different answers on different occasions. The major
question about future development of the larger part of the parcel have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the
citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the
rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER
Director of the Community Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions
about the various applications related to 685 Peak View, and stated that the CDD was 'satisfied'
with the application.
The Town Attorney also made major efforts to shut down various avenues of discussion.
There is a memo from the Public Works Department clearly listing issues that needed to be
addressed. Were this all addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the
deciders! The citizens have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they
are not being heard.
Page 156
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then
ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 157
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:22:30 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for
685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of
writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight
(September 11) had to be canceled and postponed because once again the developer did not meet
the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He has also announced that he will not
attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are
sure to be asked? Neighbors have repeatedly asked if there is going to be an HOA for the
proposed developed area. We have received different answers on different occasions. The major
question about future development of the larger part of the parcel have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the
citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the
rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER
Director of the Community Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions
about the various applications related to 685 Peak View, and stated that the CDD was 'satisfied'
with the application.
The Town Attorney also made major efforts to shut down various avenues of discussion.
There is a memo from the Public Works Department clearly listing issues that needed to be
addressed. Were this all addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the
deciders! The citizens have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they
are not being heard.
Page 158
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then
ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 159
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:22:30 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for
685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of
writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight
(September 11) had to be canceled and postponed because once again the developer did not meet
the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He has also announced that he will not
attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are
sure to be asked? Neighbors have repeatedly asked if there is going to be an HOA for the
proposed developed area. We have received different answers on different occasions. The major
question about future development of the larger part of the parcel have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the
citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the
rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER
Director of the Community Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions
about the various applications related to 685 Peak View, and stated that the CDD was 'satisfied'
with the application.
The Town Attorney also made major efforts to shut down various avenues of discussion.
There is a memo from the Public Works Department clearly listing issues that needed to be
addressed. Were this all addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the
deciders! The citizens have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they
are not being heard.
Page 160
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then
ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 161
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:22:30 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for
685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of
writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight
(September 11) had to be canceled and postponed because once again the developer did not meet
the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He has also announced that he will not
attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are
sure to be asked? Neighbors have repeatedly asked if there is going to be an HOA for the
proposed developed area. We have received different answers on different occasions. The major
question about future development of the larger part of the parcel have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the
citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the
rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER
Director of the Community Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions
about the various applications related to 685 Peak View, and stated that the CDD was 'satisfied'
with the application.
The Town Attorney also made major efforts to shut down various avenues of discussion.
There is a memo from the Public Works Department clearly listing issues that needed to be
addressed. Were this all addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the
deciders! The citizens have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they
are not being heard.
Page 162
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then
ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 163
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:22:30 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>;
"Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "To: Community Development"
<Planning@estes.org>; "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Once again.....685 Peak View................new developments
I am writing once again to express my opposition to the rezoning and development planned for
685 Peak View.
I suspect many of you are tired of receiving these letters. Many of the citizens of EP are tired of
writing them.
The required neighborhood meeting with the developer that was scheduled for tonight
(September 11) had to be canceled and postponed because once again the developer did not meet
the legal requirements for announcing the meeting. He has also announced that he will not
attend the meeting, but will send a representative instead.
How can anyone other than the developer be in a position to answer all the questions that are
sure to be asked? Neighbors have repeatedly asked if there is going to be an HOA for the
proposed developed area. We have received different answers on different occasions. The major
question about future development of the larger part of the parcel have been avoided.
This is just another demonstration of the contempt that the developer seems to show to the
citizens and even the system.
Surely after all of his failed attempts to set all of the previous meetings..........he should know the
rules by now.
It is felt by many people that the Planning Commission was unduly influenced by the FORMER
Director of the Community Development Department. She consistently glossed over questions
about the various applications related to 685 Peak View, and stated that the CDD was 'satisfied'
with the application.
The Town Attorney also made major efforts to shut down various avenues of discussion.
There is a memo from the Public Works Department clearly listing issues that needed to be
addressed. Were this all addressed? We do not know.
The role of the Town Board is different from the role of the Planning Commission. You are the
deciders! The citizens have expressed their opinions for months, but remain convinced that they
are not being heard.
Page 164
Please listen to the citizens. Please investigate all of the issues that have been raised and then
ignored.
Hundreds of Estes Park residents are counting on you.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park CO 80517
Page 165
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:04:13 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
Thank You.
Page 166
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:04:13 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
Thank You.
Page 167
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:04:13 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
Thank You.
Page 168
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:04:13 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
Thank You.
Page 169
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:04:13 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
Thank You.
Page 170
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:04:13 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
Thank You.
Page 171
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:04:13 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
Thank You.
Page 172
June 30th 2023
Dear Mayor Koenig, Trustees and Community Development,
I have now received the 6th letter in the mail for a completely different development proposal on 685
Peak View and as I write this there’s a new plan. I am not attending a meeting on July 3rd the eve before a
Federal Holiday because I have other commitments, but please note public response is high, very high. I
oppose ANY spot zoning giving privilege to one landowner while giving detriment to over 93% + APOs
opposing and 1300+ signatures opposing, possibly over 1400 as I write this.
Was the applicant notified of a conflict of interest and advised to recuse self from the comprehensive
planning committee by any town staff when the original application was submitted 11/3/22? The
bylaws and CO law given to members serving does not distinguish voting from non as I read, this is an
ethics violation in the least. The developer sat in the room and provided influence while under contract,
closing on this private entity and then applying for 8 times current zoning during the same time so I raise
the question of spot zoning once again giving privilege to one property owner and detriment to others.
I believe 13 homes border the property in question and 10 of those are zoned E1. Would this rezoning
result in consistent regulations for the other E1 surrounding property owners if submitting the same
zoning request in all fairness (note over 93% of them oppose and the other 7% have not voiced support
appearing neutral).
Developer’s Standards for Review
As per the Estes Park Development Code section 3.3.D, the following are required for a
rezoning:
1) The rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.
The increased need for housing combined with the lack of available land for such
development, has created a significant change in the land use needs compared to
when the property was originally zoned.
I would like to know the “change in condition in the areas affected” not via a survey or study that is
reaching the same conclusions for all towns across Colorado. Please elaborate on how one additional
house gives one landowner a “change in condition in the areas affected”.
2) The concept plan for the subdivision of the property is compatible and consistent
with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In the Comprehensive Plan,
sections H2.D, H2.E, H2.I, and H2.J of the Implementation Plan recommend actions
by the Town to encourage higher-density housing development.
H 2.D: Allow duplex, triplex, cottage court, dorm
Page 173
and other “missing middle” housing types. Is this one additional house that will list for over 650K the
“missing middle” this is unclear and ambiguous in a court of law. As noted in previous letters there is a
complete disregard for other parts of the comprehensive plan specifically related to our environment and
surrounding community.
H 2.E: Explore density increases tied to the creation of deed-restricted housing (e.g. small
lot subdivision, reduced lot coverage, additional height) The word Explore is used not “give”. Please
reference all comments from other letters of location to Prospect Mtn, The Thumb (Wildlife), and 75% of
E1 surrounding in exploring rezoning in this location.
H 2.J: Identify and remove regulations that create unintended barriers to housing development.
•Is our Wildlife the barrier?
•Are the over 1300 signatures opposing or the over 93% of APO taxpayers the barrier?
•Are all other parts of the Comprehensive plan that were completely ignored on application #5
presentation the barrier which was addressed in writing by numerous citizens.
Application #5 did go to the Planning Commission and when Commissioners asked about R1 zoning, and
“attainable housing” Director Garner responded that this was a problem discovered just that day and
would be “worked out ” by the time it got to town board. The application has since been withdrawn, a
Senior Planner well established in their career with over 5 years of experience with the town has
submitted a two-line letter of resignation with 2 weeks’ notice, and #6 application (#7/8 as I write this)
now submitted to rezone to E on only 2+ acres is before you. Is this the partial submittal so everything
can get “worked out” before it gets to town board? It’s insulting at this point. When the PC asked for
clarification of spot zoning the response was if it met criteria in their opinion. The “opinion” of the PC
was the reason for the denial of their recommendation for The Prospector Apartments by the Town
Board.
I ask you to deny this application for:
1.NO change in condition in the areas affected and an opinion is not a basis.
2.Inconsistency with Comp Plan, one additional home with a road is not consistent with the comp
plan as multiple sections are ignored as outlined in my and many others previous letters. A Yes
on this opens the doors to call any plot of land “change in condition.”
3.Privilege is not given to 1 landowner at detriment to others which would lead to spot zoning.
Thank You
Stephanie Ahrndt-Pawson
Meeker Drive
Page 174
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:19:22 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>;
"mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Attachments: Opposition-685-July18-2023-Final.pdf
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 175
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:19:22 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>;
"mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Attachments: Opposition-685-July18-2023-Final.pdf
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 176
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:19:22 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>;
"mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Attachments: Opposition-685-July18-2023-Final.pdf
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 177
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:19:22 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>;
"mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Attachments: Opposition-685-July18-2023-Final.pdf
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 178
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:19:22 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>;
"mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Attachments: Opposition-685-July18-2023-Final.pdf
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 179
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:19:22 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>;
"mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Attachments: Opposition-685-July18-2023-Final.pdf
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 180
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:19:22 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"Community Development" <planning@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>;
"mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Attachments: Opposition-685-July18-2023-Final.pdf
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 181
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr. – July 18, 2023
Mr. Theis hosted another neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023, and before he rudely stormed out
presented a new plat for a partial rezoning of 685 Peak View. This varied significantly from Frank’s initial
ones. This time there was no verbiage of attainable, affordable, or workforce housing effectively removing
the restrictions associated with such.
Frank’s new partial subdivide/rezone Application (signed 5/30/2023) was initially for (4) half- acre lots.
Yet, an altered reduced version for (3) half- acre lots was submitted with an updated application to the
planning department (dated 6/27/2023).
When explaining this change, he mentioned that Kara Washam (Planner 1) assisted him and suggested
that she thought it would be better if Frank would reduce it down to four overall lots, three and one
remaining larger piece w/existing cabin would be the 4 th lot, and so Frank agreed to that. Frank stated,
“Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and get rid of the weird calculation for open space,
but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a half-acre”. Frank stated that the plan was currently being
altered.
These (3) ½ acre lots with the private entrance would be in the same location on the property as the initial
plan, with Theis clearly noting that he has not yet determined if he will apply for rezoning of the remaining
5.22 acres (w/existing driveway).
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of 5 or more units provide open space of 15 percent of
the property. A subdivision of 4 lots is not required to provide open space. So now Frank & the planning
dept. have eliminated the open space and created larger lots that will sell at a much higher price. Frank is
the only benefactor from this change/proposal, and it is at the detriment of all adjacent property owners
who will suffer losses in property value. It’s not the Town’s duty to help Frank maximize his return on
investment. Especially when he impacted and influenced current town strategies while he was sitting on
the Comprehensive Planning Committee and during that time, he purchased this property. His unique
relationship with these governing bodies and planning staff coupled with past meeting statements raises
many eyebrows.
If you overlay his new submission plan over his withdrawn submission, then you can see why I believe the
reasoning for this change is tied purely to an undisclosed long-term plan. In this case, yes, the 3 lots
would make it simpler, at least for Frank & the Planning Department (as disclosed by Frank) ….and still
accommodates their long-term collaborative agenda. Let’s be clear, the original plan got in trouble when
our Director of Development disclosed a “glitch” halfway through the planning department’s planning
commission meeting presentation on May 16, 2023. Not at the beginning, but halfway through the
presentation, casting a shadow over the whole event as a deceitful attempt to push it through no matter
what may be legal or not. No change of condition exists to warrant this proposal/change and it’s only
being requested to increase developer profitability and staff desires. It’s no wonder the community has
lost faith in Frank and the Town Staff when there’s clearly a collaborative effort at something beyond this
change and there’s an unwillingness to disclose it.
If Frank’s real intent is only 3 lots with no future plan for the rest, then even if there were a change of
condition, it would not satisfy it. It’s only appropriate to leave the property as zoned, otherwise it
becomes apparent this is nothing more than spot zoning to benefit Frank, the planning department, and
some unknown Town strategy. This proposal is nothing more than Frank’s and the Planning
Department’s Las Vegas style betting to improve their odds at rezoning approvals now and down the
road.
Page 182
This will destroy a well-planned existing neighborhood that has been maintained under appropriate
zoning for many years including the preservation of wildlife and, wildlife habitat, which by the way is
viewed by hundreds if not thousands of Estes Park visitors annually. All of this change at the expense of
neighbors, community, and visitors with nothing in the proposal supporting anything but profitable gain
for the developer. Interesting enough, at previous planning commission meetings I’ve heard questions
about “how will this affect the neighbors” yet this seems to be an absent concern when it comes to this
property, since I’ve yet to hear the question asked by any commissioner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for the questions/concerns raised at the July 3 neighborhood meeting.
An individual questioned Frank, if you have no strategy for your plan for the rest of the acreage (5.22
acreage), and you got ½ acre lots (on the 2.39 acre), what would be the difference between that and
leaving it zoned as it is (E-1), cause there is no real condition or change other than you being able to
make more money off the property Frank? Frank says, “well fine”. Individual responds, “that’s your
purpose”. Frank responded, “you just answered your own question”.
Acceptance of an improper and false application:
An individual acknowledged at the meeting that the site staking was not done when the
rezoning Application was originally submitted. Staking was done July 3 (est. 2 hours prior to meeting)
and Frank (the applicant) acknowledged this at the July 3 meeting.
The individual declared this to be a clear violation of the application process, (the application states it
cannot be submitted until it has been staked).
WHY has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried forward?
The application (on all paperwork Frank has signed and filed) since the new partial rezoning process
started, contains false information that the developer acknowledged as false at the July 3 neighborhood
meeting. Staking was NOT done.
Frank even stated there would be another meeting. Yet the rezoning is allowed to be carried forward as a
continuance…a bold thumb up the nose by a Planning Department emboldened by some unforeseen
power. Does our Town Staff not follow public Policies, procedures, and regulations? How can planning
staff make exceptions for some applicants when they’ve been caught multiple times not adhering to the
simplest of rules. Is planning staff setting a precedence that we citizens will live with for years to come?
How can you allow these deviations for one and not all?
I strongly urge the Planning Commissioners and the Town Board to deny this Rezoning Application.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. – Estes Park
Page 183
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 20:27:39 +0000
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Re-zoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Ltr-Opposition-685-Jul1-2023-Final.docx
Thank You!
Christy Jacobs
Twin Dr.
Page 184
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 20:27:39 +0000
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Re-zoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Ltr-Opposition-685-Jul1-2023-Final.docx
Thank You!
Christy Jacobs
Twin Dr.
Page 185
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 20:27:39 +0000
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Re-zoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Ltr-Opposition-685-Jul1-2023-Final.docx
Thank You!
Christy Jacobs
Twin Dr.
Page 186
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 20:27:39 +0000
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Re-zoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Ltr-Opposition-685-Jul1-2023-Final.docx
Thank You!
Christy Jacobs
Twin Dr.
Page 187
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 20:27:39 +0000
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Re-zoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Ltr-Opposition-685-Jul1-2023-Final.docx
Thank You!
Christy Jacobs
Twin Dr.
Page 188
Page 1 of 2
July 1, 2023
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View Dr.
To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners
I am writing to convey my passionate and resounding opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View
Drive.
From December 2022 to June 2023, Frank Theis submitted multiple plans, at least 6 to 8 plans.
Once, he even pulled a plan out of the hat at the end of a Meeting ( #2 February 6, 2023), waived it in
the air and threatened that this might be the one he submits (30 to 34 lots). No explaining or having
further discussions about that plan, just stating he might just submit this one and that was that. The
neighbors attending this meeting felt insulted, disgusted, disrespected, and that Frank showed he is
truly untrustworthy.
These multiple plans are Frank’s Las Vegas style betting to improve his odds at rezoning approval.
This really amounts to nothing more than Strategic Spot Zoning by Frank who is obviously collaborating
with Town staff. Frank continues to state, “It’s what the Town Wants” or “The Town wants this &
that’s what I am doing”.
At the Planning Commission meeting May 16, 2023, and far into the discussion of the rezoning of 685
Peak View, Director Jessica Garner reveals that a problem has been discovered that morning regarding
Frank’s plan. As I was watching this all unfold, I was questioning why this problem was not brought up
by Director Garner or the Town Attorney Kramer at the beginning of this agenda item rather than the
later part when the Commissioners quizzed staff about the R1 zoning “attainable housing”. Only then
did Director Garner bring up this problem. Director Garner and the Town Attorney should have brought
this up at the very beginning and not when they got caught. To me and other citizens at the meeting,
this was clearly Town Staff hoping to push this agenda through without anyone noticing or bringing it
up. Watch the video! At this point, the deceitfulness of the Town Staff was obvious, it was personally
insulting, and I was highly disturbed and disgusted as were many others. This, along with many other
actions, could be considered an Ethics Violation by Town Staff. To top it all off, at one point it sounded
like Frank was running the meeting and not the Chair.
During this meeting, discussion ensued regarding Change of Condition & Areas Affected. A
Commissioner said “in my opinion” and went on with his opinion of what he felt was Change of
Condition and Areas Affected. The opinion of an individual is just an opinion not a fact or basis. Wow,
for a commissioner to make Change of Conditions and Areas Affected statements as an individual
opinion, was mouth dropping to many in attendance. Areas Affected definition is a very gray area in the
Development Code. One individual opinion does not make fact. It appears that this commissioner was
pushing his view to the other commissioners, staff, and citizens.
So, as you can see, I have so many reasons to vehemently oppose this rezoning as I have mentioned not
only in this letter, but as I have mentioned with many of my prior letters. It should also be noted that all
previous letters submitted to the Town did, and still do, represent the community's feelings about this
zoning change. Sometimes the new application seems to be considered an extension of the original and
sometimes not (as best suits the administrative need), so not including previous comments about this
Page 189
Page 2 of 2
property is inappropriate and a ploy by Town Staff to circumvent the overwhelming support against
their endeavors.
As an Adjoining Property Owner (APO), I am not opposed to developing the subject property as
currently zoned/planned, like the rest of us that purchased our properties with the E-1 zoning.
I request you deny this application for the following reasons:
1. 93% of the Adjoining Property Owners Oppose this rezoning.
2. More than 2/3 of the bordering properties are zoned E-1.
3. There’s abundant public petitioners, letters, comments, and concerns against this
change when compared to those in favor of the change.
4. There is no change in conditions warranting this change.
5. The zoning change may be contested as “spot zoning” costing the Town and Taxpayers
to defend a contestable zoning change that is currently illegal in Colorado.
6. There has been no concern mentioned about the wildlife & environment which is mentioned
in the Comp. Plan.
7. Frank as an individual, as a developer, and his company have made numerous blunders
since December 2022. These amount to simply adhering to community rules and following
administrative guidelines. Given this historical performance, therefore I don’t believe Frank
Theis is capable or can satisfactorily develop any parcel much less grant him the ability to do
so by having his property re-zoned for such.
8. There’s Ubiquitous evidence of potential ethics violations and not just by Frank’s words and
actions but also by governing bodies. These bodies and members potentially allowed
violations of bylaws, discriminatory actions by staff against citizens, and limiting of public
input. Frank used his position while serving on the Este Forward Comprehensive Planning
Committee to directly and indirectly lobby for himself and other developers and it is
undeniable that his participation was intended to influence decisions. To date, I have seen no
written or heard any verbal concerns about Franks participation or if it may violate the bylaws
of the body. I believe it is a fact that Frank purchased the property while he was serving on the
Comp. Plan which should have been another red flag.
I have seen and heard the biased opinions based without facts, the
disrespectful attitude of staff towards citizens and the alarming shenanigans
of this town’s governmental politics played out during this 685-rezoning
process. Regrettably, I am becoming more and more disgusted, distrustful,
and no longer have respect for many of our Town Staff, Commissioners and
Frank.
Christy Jacobs
Twin Dr.
A Compassionate Concerned Citizen
A Voice for the Protection of Wildlife & Environment
Page 190
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 06:54:23 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
Attachments: Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-08132023.pdf
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 191
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 06:54:23 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
Attachments: Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-08132023.pdf
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 192
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 06:54:23 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
Attachments: Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-08132023.pdf
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 193
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 06:54:23 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
Attachments: Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-08132023.pdf
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 194
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 06:54:23 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
Attachments: Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-08132023.pdf
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 195
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 06:54:23 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
Attachments: Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-08132023.pdf
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 196
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 06:54:23 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
Attachments: Opposition-Ltr-685 PeakView-TheAffectedArea-08132023.pdf
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 197
OpposiƟon to Rezoning 685 & Subdividing 685 Peak View
I am highly in opposiƟon to the rezoning & subdividing of 685 Peak View for many
reasons, which I have stated in previous emails. In this leƩer I will state (1) issue
that should not allow the rezoning to be approved.
Issue: The Affected Area regarding Change of CondiƟons:
There have been some concerns regarding what consƟtutes the
definiƟon/meaning of what is The Affected Area.
Some town staff have stated, in their opinion, The Affected Area is the whole town
of Estes Park due to the housing study.
This is a broad statement which would impose and pretty much remove all zoning
not only in municipalities, but even expand to include the county, the state,
infinity…etc. Estes Park is one of the 63 municipalities that OPPOSED Gov. Polis'
Senate Bill 23-213. Have you all changed your minds and now plan to remove all
zoning like Polis’ Bill 23-213 would have done?
The Affected Area is NOT the whole Town of E.P. as I will explain…as follows…
Per Development Code – Per Larimer County Assessor website – Per Colo. Rev.
Statutes 31-23-305…see below.
Per the Development code - The Affected is the Adjacent Property Owners (APOs)
Chapter 3.2- Standard Development Review Procedure
B. Step 2: Neighborhood and Community Meeting
C. (2) Written Notification:
The applicant shall provide notification of the neighborhood and community
meeting a minimum of ten (10) business days in advance of the meeting by placing
notice in a newspaper or display advertising of general circulation in the Estes
Valley and by mailing notice to all owners and occupants within the notification
boundary of the land subject of the affected property shall be obtained by the
applicant from the most recent version of the property owners of record
provided by The Town of Estes Park. The notification shall state the time and
place of the meeting. (Note: The town provided all APO's including the APOs that
are in the county that are affected neighbors to the subject property. There is
nothing stating excluding any APO properties that are outside the town that abut
the subject property.)
Page 198
Per the Larimer County Assessor website:
Written notice is to be mailed...
It is figured out through the Larimer County Assessors website. Properties 100
feet from the subject, plus 100 feet from those properties.
4. The boundary perimeter within which written notice is to be mailed shall
be determined to include the following.
a. The subject property(s);
b. All properties abutting the subject property(s);
c. All properties directly across a public street or public
right-of-way from the subject property(s), measured by
straight line perpendicular to the street or right-of-way
centerline.
d. All properties in whole or in part less than or equal to one
hundred (100) linear feet from the outermost boundaries of any
property included in (a), (b), or (c) of this Section . The width of
any intervening public street of public right-of way shall not
be counted against the 100 feet linear measure.
(Note: The Larimer County Assessor website information along with an APO Map
of the boundaries to subject property was provided by Karin Swanlund, E.P. Town
Staff.
Per Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-305
2022 Colorado Code
Title 31 - Government - Municipal
Article 23 - Planning and Zoning
Part 3 - Zoning
§ 31-23-305. Changes
Universal Citation: CO Code § 31-23-305 (2022)
Such regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended,
supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. In case, however, of a protest
against changes in regulations or restrictions, or changes in the zone district
applicable to particular land, which protest is filed with the municipal clerk at
least twenty-four hours prior to the governing body's vote on the change and
is signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land which is
subject to the proposed change or twenty percent or more of the area of land
Page 199
extending a radius of one hundred feet from the land which is subject to the
proposed change, disregarding intervening public streets and alleys, such changes
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of two-thirds of all the
members of the governing body of the municipality. The provisions of section 31-23-
304 relative to public hearings and official notice shall apply equally to all changes or
amendments.
So, The Affected Area is NOT the whole Town of Estes Park, therefore, there is NO
Change in CondiƟons to the area of subject property 685 Peak View.
Please, please, please deny this rezoning request.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 200
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:35:03 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it
the Coyote Ridge Rezoning???
And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am
confident this will not be the last one.
In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and
now 3.
Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in
the background.
I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since
Jeff Woeber's resignation last Friday.
I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only
OPINIONS until a lawsuit or legal actions occur.
I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability
of residents to speak at meetings.
I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this
town.
Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K)
has no residency requirement.
It is very puzzling to me???
In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View
these days.
WHY:
No change of condition.
Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just
ALLOWED).
Jackie Adams
Page 201
Adjacent Property Owner
565 A Devon Drive
Page 202
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:35:03 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it
the Coyote Ridge Rezoning???
And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am
confident this will not be the last one.
In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and
now 3.
Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in
the background.
I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since
Jeff Woeber's resignation last Friday.
I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only
OPINIONS until a lawsuit or legal actions occur.
I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability
of residents to speak at meetings.
I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this
town.
Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K)
has no residency requirement.
It is very puzzling to me???
In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View
these days.
WHY:
No change of condition.
Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just
ALLOWED).
Jackie Adams
Page 203
Adjacent Property Owner
565 A Devon Drive
Page 204
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:35:03 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it
the Coyote Ridge Rezoning???
And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am
confident this will not be the last one.
In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and
now 3.
Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in
the background.
I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since
Jeff Woeber's resignation last Friday.
I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only
OPINIONS until a lawsuit or legal actions occur.
I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability
of residents to speak at meetings.
I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this
town.
Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K)
has no residency requirement.
It is very puzzling to me???
In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View
these days.
WHY:
No change of condition.
Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just
ALLOWED).
Jackie Adams
Page 205
Adjacent Property Owner
565 A Devon Drive
Page 206
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:35:03 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it
the Coyote Ridge Rezoning???
And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am
confident this will not be the last one.
In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and
now 3.
Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in
the background.
I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since
Jeff Woeber's resignation last Friday.
I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only
OPINIONS until a lawsuit or legal actions occur.
I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability
of residents to speak at meetings.
I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this
town.
Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K)
has no residency requirement.
It is very puzzling to me???
In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View
these days.
WHY:
No change of condition.
Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just
ALLOWED).
Jackie Adams
Page 207
Adjacent Property Owner
565 A Devon Drive
Page 208
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:35:03 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it
the Coyote Ridge Rezoning???
And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am
confident this will not be the last one.
In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and
now 3.
Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in
the background.
I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since
Jeff Woeber's resignation last Friday.
I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only
OPINIONS until a lawsuit or legal actions occur.
I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability
of residents to speak at meetings.
I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this
town.
Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K)
has no residency requirement.
It is very puzzling to me???
In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View
these days.
WHY:
No change of condition.
Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just
ALLOWED).
Jackie Adams
Page 209
Adjacent Property Owner
565 A Devon Drive
Page 210
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:35:03 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it
the Coyote Ridge Rezoning???
And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am
confident this will not be the last one.
In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and
now 3.
Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in
the background.
I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since
Jeff Woeber's resignation last Friday.
I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only
OPINIONS until a lawsuit or legal actions occur.
I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability
of residents to speak at meetings.
I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this
town.
Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K)
has no residency requirement.
It is very puzzling to me???
In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View
these days.
WHY:
No change of condition.
Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just
ALLOWED).
Jackie Adams
Page 211
Adjacent Property Owner
565 A Devon Drive
Page 212
From: Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:35:03 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it
the Coyote Ridge Rezoning???
And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am
confident this will not be the last one.
In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and
now 3.
Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in
the background.
I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since
Jeff Woeber's resignation last Friday.
I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only
OPINIONS until a lawsuit or legal actions occur.
I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability
of residents to speak at meetings.
I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this
town.
Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K)
has no residency requirement.
It is very puzzling to me???
In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View
these days.
WHY:
No change of condition.
Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just
ALLOWED).
Jackie Adams
Page 213
Adjacent Property Owner
565 A Devon Drive
Page 214
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:09:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>
Cc: "Tami Scace" <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>; "Kristine L. Poppitz"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>; "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to any rezoning on 685 Peak View
Dear Commissioners and Town Leaders,
I have previously outlined my opposition but need to reiterate
my concerns as Frank Theis continues to modify plans in an
attempt to push his agenda down the slippery slope of change.
At the planning commission meeting when the can was kicked
down the road, I got the sense that the commission was looking
for ways to approve Frank's request. I think the town attorney's
defining of "spot zoning" was incomplete if not completely
inaccurate and that issue needs a lot more scrutiny. Comments
like "the increased density doesn't look bad" on the map indicate
to me the desire to approve something, most likely in an attempt
to achieve some unwritten density goal for the Town. Now
Frank made additional changes to his proposal to make his
scheme look more like "what the town wants". Let's not fall for
that, stick to the plan.
I'm not opposed to developing the property as currently
zoned/planned. This has been a long standing plan, held strictly
to by all who have build in the area, and expected to be
reinforced by the governing bodies in the future. There is no
need to change a well developed plan (reaffirmed in the recent
Comprehensive Plan, December 2022) and NO CHANGES IN
CONDITIONS that would warrant changes.
Page 215
Changes as Frank proposes are not the solution to Estes Park's
perceived housing crisis. There are many ongoing developments
aimed directly at helping to ease some of the housing issues
associated with workforce and lower cost dwellings. It is not
economically feasible to develop something at 685 Peak View
that helps with these issues. That's just one of the hard economic
facts of today. And, increasing density is not good for all
locations.
I still have concerns with the process outlined in our guiding
documents. Not considering impacts before making changes just
seems illogical. I know there are checks and balances, and Frank
has voluntarily done some studies prior to approval, but once
that cat is out of the bag it ain't going back in, the damage will
have been done.
So please, reaffirm again the plan that you all recently
reaffirmed. Let's not let the desires on one individual, wise in his
approach but ultimately aimed at making more money, mess
with our beloved community.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 216
From: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:47:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"jdamweber@estes.org" <jdamweber@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: 685 Peak View.doc
Importance: Normal
Page 217
From: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:47:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"jdamweber@estes.org" <jdamweber@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: 685 Peak View.doc
Importance: Normal
Page 218
From: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:47:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"jdamweber@estes.org" <jdamweber@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: 685 Peak View.doc
Importance: Normal
Page 219
Dt: September 15, 2023
To: Mayor Koenig
Estes Park Town Board Trustees
Town Clerk
Planning Commission
Fr: Laura V. Campbell and Ronald R. Houlette
1221 Prospect Mountain Road, Estes Park CO
Re: Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
My husband and I are full time residents of Estes Park and we are writing to express
opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. Since PEP’s inception, (a concerned
citizen’s group) we have actively participated in the organization and we support its
mission and agree with the arguments expressed by its members.
As Estes Park residents, we are very worried about potential wild fire danger specific to
Colorado and the mountain areas. Researching this topic is terrifying. Promoting high
density housing that does not address the needs of work force housing is reckless,
unnecessary, dangerous, and contrary to what the people of this community want. Please
consider the following when making your decision regarding rezoning 685 Peak View in
favor of high density housing.
1. CoreLogic released their yearly wildfire risk report. Hundreds of thousands of
Colorado homes are at risk of burning in wildfire, per report. Colorado trailed
only California in the number of homes at risk of burning in a wild fire. August
16, 2023.
2. Article in the Loveland Reporter-Herald by Bruce Finley published January 16,
2022 “Spacing here was a problem’: Closely built homes helped Marshall
firestorm spread, researchers say. “Too many houses built too close together on
the tinder-dry high plains between Denver and Boulder led to the Marshall
firestorm losses topping $1 billion”. High density housing is fuel for a fire.
3. According to the Town of Estes Park, our community “is a wildland urban
interface where the risk of wildfire is elevated year-round.”
4. Our daughter and son in law lived in our Estes Park cabin during the Cameron
Peak and East Troublesome fires and we were gravely concerned for their safety
and frightened they would get trapped with no way to escape. The skies were
black in the middle of the afternoon, traffic was at a standstill as most of the town
was under a mandatory evacuation order. Thankfully, the fire was in October so
there were fewer tourists and not as many people to evacuate and an early
snowstorm helped to extinguish the fire. Imagine if the fire occurred during the
summer with thousands more tourists and no help from Mother Nature; who
knows how many lives would have been lost because they couldn’t leave?
Consider the recent fire in Maui with 115 confirmed deaths and hundreds still
unaccounted for. Thankfully there was an ocean for many to escape the fire while
waiting for help.
5.In terms of a wildfire risk in Estes Park, we agree with Mayor Wendy Koenig and
Town Trustee Frank Lancaster who both have publicly stated “it is not a matter of
if, but when…”
Thank you for your time and consideration. Again, please do not approve this rezoning
application.
Laura V. Campbell
Ronald R. Houlette
Page 220
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:45:47 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems to
be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why can’t
the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 221
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the codes
if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one
parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
Page 222
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:45:47 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems to
be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why can’t
the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 223
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the codes
if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one
parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
Page 224
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:45:47 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems to
be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why can’t
the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 225
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the codes
if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one
parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
Page 226
From: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:47:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"jdamweber@estes.org" <jdamweber@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: 685 Peak View.doc
Importance: Normal
Page 227
Dt: September 15, 2023
To: Mayor Koenig
Estes Park Town Board Trustees
Town Clerk
Planning Commission
Fr: Laura V. Campbell and Ronald R. Houlette
1221 Prospect Mountain Road, Estes Park CO
Re: Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
My husband and I are full time residents of Estes Park and we are writing to express
opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. Since PEP’s inception, (a concerned
citizen’s group) we have actively participated in the organization and we support its
mission and agree with the arguments expressed by its members.
As Estes Park residents, we are very worried about potential wild fire danger specific to
Colorado and the mountain areas. Researching this topic is terrifying. Promoting high
density housing that does not address the needs of work force housing is reckless,
unnecessary, dangerous, and contrary to what the people of this community want. Please
consider the following when making your decision regarding rezoning 685 Peak View in
favor of high density housing.
1. CoreLogic released their yearly wildfire risk report. Hundreds of thousands of
Colorado homes are at risk of burning in wildfire, per report. Colorado trailed
only California in the number of homes at risk of burning in a wild fire. August
16, 2023.
2. Article in the Loveland Reporter-Herald by Bruce Finley published January 16,
2022 “Spacing here was a problem’: Closely built homes helped Marshall
firestorm spread, researchers say. “Too many houses built too close together on
the tinder-dry high plains between Denver and Boulder led to the Marshall
firestorm losses topping $1 billion”. High density housing is fuel for a fire.
3. According to the Town of Estes Park, our community “is a wildland urban
interface where the risk of wildfire is elevated year-round.”
4. Our daughter and son in law lived in our Estes Park cabin during the Cameron
Peak and East Troublesome fires and we were gravely concerned for their safety
and frightened they would get trapped with no way to escape. The skies were
black in the middle of the afternoon, traffic was at a standstill as most of the town
was under a mandatory evacuation order. Thankfully, the fire was in October so
there were fewer tourists and not as many people to evacuate and an early
snowstorm helped to extinguish the fire. Imagine if the fire occurred during the
summer with thousands more tourists and no help from Mother Nature; who
knows how many lives would have been lost because they couldn’t leave?
Consider the recent fire in Maui with 115 confirmed deaths and hundreds still
unaccounted for. Thankfully there was an ocean for many to escape the fire while
waiting for help.
5.In terms of a wildfire risk in Estes Park, we agree with Mayor Wendy Koenig and
Town Trustee Frank Lancaster who both have publicly stated “it is not a matter of
if, but when…”
Thank you for your time and consideration. Again, please do not approve this rezoning
application.
Laura V. Campbell
Ronald R. Houlette
Page 228
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:45:47 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems to
be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why can’t
the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 229
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the codes
if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one
parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
Page 230
From: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:47:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"jdamweber@estes.org" <jdamweber@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: 685 Peak View.doc
Importance: Normal
Page 231
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:45:47 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems to
be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why can’t
the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 232
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the codes
if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one
parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
Page 233
From: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:47:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"jdamweber@estes.org" <jdamweber@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: 685 Peak View.doc
Importance: Normal
Page 234
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:45:47 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems to
be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why can’t
the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 235
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the codes
if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one
parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
Page 236
From: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:47:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"jdamweber@estes.org" <jdamweber@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: 685 Peak View.doc
Importance: Normal
Page 237
From: Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:45:47 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems to
be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why can’t
the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 238
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the codes
if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one
parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
Page 239
From: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been quite
a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans every
time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change of
conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing, but
this particular development would never be affordable or available
for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 240
From: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been quite
a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans every
time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change of
conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing, but
this particular development would never be affordable or available
for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 241
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this specific
matter and matters of this nature. Because of the quasi-judicial
nature of this type of issue we are banned from having
meaningful dialogue with both the recommending body, the
Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision makers in
these matters. Therefore, we have done research and sought out
expert legal opinions to better define our case opposing this
proposed rezoning.
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is right
about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it means to
comply with our Development Code and Master Plan. We will
present facts about the process and opinion about what
governance should mean as we look at the future of planning in
the Estes Valley.
Page 242
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at a
crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development and
the potential negative impacts of increased density. We believe
that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in this
neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that are
in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards any
one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in these
guiding documents are applied, they are applied consistent with
common thought and application to the specific situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request, three
criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
Page 243
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria
set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this
Code.
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; and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers to
conditions in the areas affected;
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those living
on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown, or the
neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by a zoning
change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the argument that
“the town needs more housing” (which seems to be the basis of
planning staff’s recommendation that there is a change of
conditions) applies to this application as a “change in condition”
then where in town does the argument not apply? Clearly, the
Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of each street,
subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
Page 244
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the request
to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any changes
in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated at our first
community meeting there are no changes in conditions. If you
review your own meeting discussions note that Chair Matt
Comstock stated something to the effect that if we looked back
at the town minutes from 20 years ago there was talk of the need
for more housing, so what’s changed? The economics of
property values is not a “change in conditions”, it’s an economic
reality and always has been. In fact, a change in zoning would
not be compatible with the current zoning and the very real
nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This is
clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we could
interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is consistent
with “existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and built homes
respecting the existing requirements, not immediately changing
what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to the
Page 245
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood,
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.”
(Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of this request
would create a “change in conditions” rather than be the result
of some undefined changes in conditions in the affected
neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance with
the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to cautiously
weigh the pros and cons of each development proposal. Let’s
proceed with caution. Let’s not change the current zoning on
685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a presentation
Page 246
on this proposal by the developer? The Development Code,
Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, and respond to comments and questions
neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to
resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development Director.
Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get information
about the proposal and no opportunity for the developer to
“respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about
the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts”. This
decision to waive requirements spelled out in the Development
Code, is deceptive, and undermines the process of getting to the
best, most appropriate decision on this rezoning application.
There are other examples of non-adherence to the Town’s own
process, which raises red flags about the real desire of Town
officials to adhere to the established process, and perhaps even
exhibits favoritism towards the developer. Without dialogue on
the issue, what are we supposed to believe? Do we just have to
accept the “my way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but there
was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of input to
Page 247
the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our opinion,
lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look upon
us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned about
our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised when
they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 248
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this specific
matter and matters of this nature. Because of the quasi-judicial
nature of this type of issue we are banned from having
meaningful dialogue with both the recommending body, the
Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision makers in
these matters. Therefore, we have done research and sought out
expert legal opinions to better define our case opposing this
proposed rezoning.
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is right
about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it means to
comply with our Development Code and Master Plan. We will
present facts about the process and opinion about what
governance should mean as we look at the future of planning in
the Estes Valley.
Page 249
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at a
crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development and
the potential negative impacts of increased density. We believe
that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in this
neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that are
in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards any
one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in these
guiding documents are applied, they are applied consistent with
common thought and application to the specific situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request, three
criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
Page 250
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria
set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this
Code.
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; and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers to
conditions in the areas affected;
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those living
on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown, or the
neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by a zoning
change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the argument that
“the town needs more housing” (which seems to be the basis of
planning staff’s recommendation that there is a change of
conditions) applies to this application as a “change in condition”
then where in town does the argument not apply? Clearly, the
Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of each street,
subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
Page 251
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the request
to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any changes
in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated at our first
community meeting there are no changes in conditions. If you
review your own meeting discussions note that Chair Matt
Comstock stated something to the effect that if we looked back
at the town minutes from 20 years ago there was talk of the need
for more housing, so what’s changed? The economics of
property values is not a “change in conditions”, it’s an economic
reality and always has been. In fact, a change in zoning would
not be compatible with the current zoning and the very real
nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This is
clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we could
interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is consistent
with “existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and built homes
respecting the existing requirements, not immediately changing
what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to the
Page 252
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood,
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.”
(Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of this request
would create a “change in conditions” rather than be the result
of some undefined changes in conditions in the affected
neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance with
the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to cautiously
weigh the pros and cons of each development proposal. Let’s
proceed with caution. Let’s not change the current zoning on
685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a presentation
Page 253
on this proposal by the developer? The Development Code,
Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, and respond to comments and questions
neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to
resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development Director.
Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get information
about the proposal and no opportunity for the developer to
“respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about
the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts”. This
decision to waive requirements spelled out in the Development
Code, is deceptive, and undermines the process of getting to the
best, most appropriate decision on this rezoning application.
There are other examples of non-adherence to the Town’s own
process, which raises red flags about the real desire of Town
officials to adhere to the established process, and perhaps even
exhibits favoritism towards the developer. Without dialogue on
the issue, what are we supposed to believe? Do we just have to
accept the “my way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but there
was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of input to
Page 254
the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our opinion,
lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look upon
us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned about
our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised when
they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 255
From: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been quite
a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans every
time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change of
conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing, but
this particular development would never be affordable or available
for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 256
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this specific
matter and matters of this nature. Because of the quasi-judicial
nature of this type of issue we are banned from having
meaningful dialogue with both the recommending body, the
Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision makers in
these matters. Therefore, we have done research and sought out
expert legal opinions to better define our case opposing this
proposed rezoning.
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is right
about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it means to
comply with our Development Code and Master Plan. We will
present facts about the process and opinion about what
governance should mean as we look at the future of planning in
the Estes Valley.
Page 257
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at a
crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development and
the potential negative impacts of increased density. We believe
that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in this
neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that are
in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards any
one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in these
guiding documents are applied, they are applied consistent with
common thought and application to the specific situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request, three
criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
Page 258
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria
set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this
Code.
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; and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers to
conditions in the areas affected;
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those living
on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown, or the
neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by a zoning
change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the argument that
“the town needs more housing” (which seems to be the basis of
planning staff’s recommendation that there is a change of
conditions) applies to this application as a “change in condition”
then where in town does the argument not apply? Clearly, the
Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of each street,
subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
Page 259
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the request
to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any changes
in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated at our first
community meeting there are no changes in conditions. If you
review your own meeting discussions note that Chair Matt
Comstock stated something to the effect that if we looked back
at the town minutes from 20 years ago there was talk of the need
for more housing, so what’s changed? The economics of
property values is not a “change in conditions”, it’s an economic
reality and always has been. In fact, a change in zoning would
not be compatible with the current zoning and the very real
nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This is
clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we could
interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is consistent
with “existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and built homes
respecting the existing requirements, not immediately changing
what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to the
Page 260
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood,
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.”
(Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of this request
would create a “change in conditions” rather than be the result
of some undefined changes in conditions in the affected
neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance with
the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to cautiously
weigh the pros and cons of each development proposal. Let’s
proceed with caution. Let’s not change the current zoning on
685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a presentation
Page 261
on this proposal by the developer? The Development Code,
Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, and respond to comments and questions
neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to
resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development Director.
Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get information
about the proposal and no opportunity for the developer to
“respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about
the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts”. This
decision to waive requirements spelled out in the Development
Code, is deceptive, and undermines the process of getting to the
best, most appropriate decision on this rezoning application.
There are other examples of non-adherence to the Town’s own
process, which raises red flags about the real desire of Town
officials to adhere to the established process, and perhaps even
exhibits favoritism towards the developer. Without dialogue on
the issue, what are we supposed to believe? Do we just have to
accept the “my way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but there
was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of input to
Page 262
the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our opinion,
lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look upon
us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned about
our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised when
they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 263
From: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been quite
a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans every
time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change of
conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing, but
this particular development would never be affordable or available
for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 264
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this specific
matter and matters of this nature. Because of the quasi-judicial
nature of this type of issue we are banned from having
meaningful dialogue with both the recommending body, the
Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision makers in
these matters. Therefore, we have done research and sought out
expert legal opinions to better define our case opposing this
proposed rezoning.
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is right
about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it means to
comply with our Development Code and Master Plan. We will
present facts about the process and opinion about what
governance should mean as we look at the future of planning in
the Estes Valley.
Page 265
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at a
crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development and
the potential negative impacts of increased density. We believe
that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in this
neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that are
in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards any
one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in these
guiding documents are applied, they are applied consistent with
common thought and application to the specific situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request, three
criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
Page 266
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria
set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this
Code.
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; and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers to
conditions in the areas affected;
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those living
on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown, or the
neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by a zoning
change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the argument that
“the town needs more housing” (which seems to be the basis of
planning staff’s recommendation that there is a change of
conditions) applies to this application as a “change in condition”
then where in town does the argument not apply? Clearly, the
Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of each street,
subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
Page 267
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the request
to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any changes
in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated at our first
community meeting there are no changes in conditions. If you
review your own meeting discussions note that Chair Matt
Comstock stated something to the effect that if we looked back
at the town minutes from 20 years ago there was talk of the need
for more housing, so what’s changed? The economics of
property values is not a “change in conditions”, it’s an economic
reality and always has been. In fact, a change in zoning would
not be compatible with the current zoning and the very real
nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This is
clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we could
interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is consistent
with “existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and built homes
respecting the existing requirements, not immediately changing
what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to the
Page 268
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood,
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.”
(Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of this request
would create a “change in conditions” rather than be the result
of some undefined changes in conditions in the affected
neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance with
the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to cautiously
weigh the pros and cons of each development proposal. Let’s
proceed with caution. Let’s not change the current zoning on
685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a presentation
Page 269
on this proposal by the developer? The Development Code,
Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, and respond to comments and questions
neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to
resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development Director.
Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get information
about the proposal and no opportunity for the developer to
“respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about
the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts”. This
decision to waive requirements spelled out in the Development
Code, is deceptive, and undermines the process of getting to the
best, most appropriate decision on this rezoning application.
There are other examples of non-adherence to the Town’s own
process, which raises red flags about the real desire of Town
officials to adhere to the established process, and perhaps even
exhibits favoritism towards the developer. Without dialogue on
the issue, what are we supposed to believe? Do we just have to
accept the “my way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but there
was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of input to
Page 270
the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our opinion,
lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look upon
us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned about
our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised when
they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 271
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this specific
matter and matters of this nature. Because of the quasi-judicial
nature of this type of issue we are banned from having
meaningful dialogue with both the recommending body, the
Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision makers in
these matters. Therefore, we have done research and sought out
expert legal opinions to better define our case opposing this
proposed rezoning.
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is right
about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it means to
comply with our Development Code and Master Plan. We will
present facts about the process and opinion about what
governance should mean as we look at the future of planning in
the Estes Valley.
Page 272
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at a
crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development and
the potential negative impacts of increased density. We believe
that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in this
neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that are
in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards any
one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in these
guiding documents are applied, they are applied consistent with
common thought and application to the specific situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request, three
criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
Page 273
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria
set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this
Code.
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; and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers to
conditions in the areas affected;
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those living
on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown, or the
neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by a zoning
change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the argument that
“the town needs more housing” (which seems to be the basis of
planning staff’s recommendation that there is a change of
conditions) applies to this application as a “change in condition”
then where in town does the argument not apply? Clearly, the
Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of each street,
subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
Page 274
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the request
to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any changes
in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated at our first
community meeting there are no changes in conditions. If you
review your own meeting discussions note that Chair Matt
Comstock stated something to the effect that if we looked back
at the town minutes from 20 years ago there was talk of the need
for more housing, so what’s changed? The economics of
property values is not a “change in conditions”, it’s an economic
reality and always has been. In fact, a change in zoning would
not be compatible with the current zoning and the very real
nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This is
clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we could
interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is consistent
with “existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and built homes
respecting the existing requirements, not immediately changing
what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to the
Page 275
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood,
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.”
(Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of this request
would create a “change in conditions” rather than be the result
of some undefined changes in conditions in the affected
neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance with
the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to cautiously
weigh the pros and cons of each development proposal. Let’s
proceed with caution. Let’s not change the current zoning on
685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a presentation
Page 276
on this proposal by the developer? The Development Code,
Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, and respond to comments and questions
neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to
resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development Director.
Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get information
about the proposal and no opportunity for the developer to
“respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about
the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts”. This
decision to waive requirements spelled out in the Development
Code, is deceptive, and undermines the process of getting to the
best, most appropriate decision on this rezoning application.
There are other examples of non-adherence to the Town’s own
process, which raises red flags about the real desire of Town
officials to adhere to the established process, and perhaps even
exhibits favoritism towards the developer. Without dialogue on
the issue, what are we supposed to believe? Do we just have to
accept the “my way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but there
was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of input to
Page 277
the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our opinion,
lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look upon
us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned about
our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised when
they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 278
From: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been quite
a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans every
time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change of
conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing, but
this particular development would never be affordable or available
for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 279
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this specific
matter and matters of this nature. Because of the quasi-judicial
nature of this type of issue we are banned from having
meaningful dialogue with both the recommending body, the
Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision makers in
these matters. Therefore, we have done research and sought out
expert legal opinions to better define our case opposing this
proposed rezoning.
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is right
about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it means to
comply with our Development Code and Master Plan. We will
present facts about the process and opinion about what
governance should mean as we look at the future of planning in
the Estes Valley.
Page 280
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at a
crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development and
the potential negative impacts of increased density. We believe
that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in this
neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that are
in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards any
one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in these
guiding documents are applied, they are applied consistent with
common thought and application to the specific situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request, three
criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
Page 281
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria
set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this
Code.
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; and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers to
conditions in the areas affected;
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those living
on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown, or the
neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by a zoning
change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the argument that
“the town needs more housing” (which seems to be the basis of
planning staff’s recommendation that there is a change of
conditions) applies to this application as a “change in condition”
then where in town does the argument not apply? Clearly, the
Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of each street,
subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
Page 282
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the request
to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any changes
in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated at our first
community meeting there are no changes in conditions. If you
review your own meeting discussions note that Chair Matt
Comstock stated something to the effect that if we looked back
at the town minutes from 20 years ago there was talk of the need
for more housing, so what’s changed? The economics of
property values is not a “change in conditions”, it’s an economic
reality and always has been. In fact, a change in zoning would
not be compatible with the current zoning and the very real
nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This is
clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we could
interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is consistent
with “existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and built homes
respecting the existing requirements, not immediately changing
what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to the
Page 283
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood,
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.”
(Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of this request
would create a “change in conditions” rather than be the result
of some undefined changes in conditions in the affected
neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance with
the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to cautiously
weigh the pros and cons of each development proposal. Let’s
proceed with caution. Let’s not change the current zoning on
685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a presentation
Page 284
on this proposal by the developer? The Development Code,
Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, and respond to comments and questions
neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to
resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development Director.
Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get information
about the proposal and no opportunity for the developer to
“respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about
the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts”. This
decision to waive requirements spelled out in the Development
Code, is deceptive, and undermines the process of getting to the
best, most appropriate decision on this rezoning application.
There are other examples of non-adherence to the Town’s own
process, which raises red flags about the real desire of Town
officials to adhere to the established process, and perhaps even
exhibits favoritism towards the developer. Without dialogue on
the issue, what are we supposed to believe? Do we just have to
accept the “my way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but there
was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of input to
Page 285
the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our opinion,
lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look upon
us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned about
our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised when
they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 286
From: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been quite
a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans every
time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change of
conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing, but
this particular development would never be affordable or available
for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 287
From: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:49:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund"
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been quite
a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans every
time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change of
conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing, but
this particular development would never be affordable or available
for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 288
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this specific
matter and matters of this nature. Because of the quasi-judicial
nature of this type of issue we are banned from having
meaningful dialogue with both the recommending body, the
Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision makers in
these matters. Therefore, we have done research and sought out
expert legal opinions to better define our case opposing this
proposed rezoning.
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is right
about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it means to
comply with our Development Code and Master Plan. We will
present facts about the process and opinion about what
governance should mean as we look at the future of planning in
the Estes Valley.
Page 289
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at a
crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development and
the potential negative impacts of increased density. We believe
that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in this
neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that are
in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards any
one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in these
guiding documents are applied, they are applied consistent with
common thought and application to the specific situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request, three
criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
Page 290
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria
set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this
Code.
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; and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers to
conditions in the areas affected;
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those living
on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown, or the
neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by a zoning
change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the argument that
“the town needs more housing” (which seems to be the basis of
planning staff’s recommendation that there is a change of
conditions) applies to this application as a “change in condition”
then where in town does the argument not apply? Clearly, the
Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of each street,
subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
Page 291
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the request
to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any changes
in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated at our first
community meeting there are no changes in conditions. If you
review your own meeting discussions note that Chair Matt
Comstock stated something to the effect that if we looked back
at the town minutes from 20 years ago there was talk of the need
for more housing, so what’s changed? The economics of
property values is not a “change in conditions”, it’s an economic
reality and always has been. In fact, a change in zoning would
not be compatible with the current zoning and the very real
nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This is
clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we could
interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is consistent
with “existing growth and development patterns in the Estes
Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and built homes
respecting the existing requirements, not immediately changing
what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to the
Page 292
public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood,
or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of this code.”
(Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of this request
would create a “change in conditions” rather than be the result
of some undefined changes in conditions in the affected
neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance with
the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to cautiously
weigh the pros and cons of each development proposal. Let’s
proceed with caution. Let’s not change the current zoning on
685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a presentation
Page 293
on this proposal by the developer? The Development Code,
Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature of
the process for review, and respond to comments and questions
neighbors may have about the application and propose ways to
resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development Director.
Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get information
about the proposal and no opportunity for the developer to
“respond to comments and questions neighbors may have about
the application and propose ways to resolve conflicts”. This
decision to waive requirements spelled out in the Development
Code, is deceptive, and undermines the process of getting to the
best, most appropriate decision on this rezoning application.
There are other examples of non-adherence to the Town’s own
process, which raises red flags about the real desire of Town
officials to adhere to the established process, and perhaps even
exhibits favoritism towards the developer. Without dialogue on
the issue, what are we supposed to believe? Do we just have to
accept the “my way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but there
was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of input to
Page 294
the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our opinion,
lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look upon
us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned about
our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised when
they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 295
From: Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:45:59 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre each. I
believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is zoned E so
he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you can see where
this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a developer, and his main
focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he says “the town”, he is
referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not aligned with the constituents
or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town trustees
and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view this as an
opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing home/land owners,
who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the devaluation of their
property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet turned
into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for preserving
such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently approved comp plan,
to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 296
From: Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:45:59 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre each. I
believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is zoned E so
he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you can see where
this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a developer, and his main
focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he says “the town”, he is
referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not aligned with the constituents
or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town trustees
and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view this as an
opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing home/land owners,
who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the devaluation of their
property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet turned
into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for preserving
such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently approved comp plan,
to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 297
From: Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:45:59 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre each. I
believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is zoned E so
he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you can see where
this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a developer, and his main
focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he says “the town”, he is
referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not aligned with the constituents
or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town trustees
and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view this as an
opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing home/land owners,
who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the devaluation of their
property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet turned
into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for preserving
such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently approved comp plan,
to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 298
From: Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:45:59 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre each. I
believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is zoned E so
he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you can see where
this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a developer, and his main
focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he says “the town”, he is
referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not aligned with the constituents
or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town trustees
and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view this as an
opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing home/land owners,
who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the devaluation of their
property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet turned
into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for preserving
such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently approved comp plan,
to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 299
From: Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:45:59 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre each. I
believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is zoned E so
he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you can see where
this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a developer, and his main
focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he says “the town”, he is
referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not aligned with the constituents
or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town trustees
and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view this as an
opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing home/land owners,
who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the devaluation of their
property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet turned
into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for preserving
such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently approved comp plan,
to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 300
From: Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:45:59 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre each. I
believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is zoned E so
he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you can see where
this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a developer, and his main
focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he says “the town”, he is
referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not aligned with the constituents
or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town trustees
and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view this as an
opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing home/land owners,
who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the devaluation of their
property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet turned
into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for preserving
such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently approved comp plan,
to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 301
From: Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:45:59 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "dkramer@estes.org"
<dkramer@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre each. I
believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is zoned E so
he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you can see where
this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a developer, and his main
focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he says “the town”, he is
referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not aligned with the constituents
or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town trustees
and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view this as an
opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing home/land owners,
who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the devaluation of their
property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet turned
into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for preserving
such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently approved comp plan,
to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 302
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:52:05 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>;
"'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View-July17-2023-Ltr1.pdf
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a received
a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
Page 303
Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View
July 17, 2023
I strongly oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View due to violation of the application process
where the required forms were not completed truthfully or accurately.
On July 3, 2023, at the neighborhood meeting with Frank Theis regarding his new
application for partial rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr., an individual that attended the
meeting acknowledged and declared a clear violation of the application process.
It was brought to the attention at this neighborhood meeting that the site staking was
completed on July 3, 2023, about 2 hours prior to the meeting. Frank acknowledged that
the staking took place on July 3. Yet, Frank Theis not only signed the original application
form on May 30th,, but on all paperwork he has filed since the new partial rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that “site staking must be completed at the time the
application is submitted”. Frank Theis signed the form stating that all of the information
included was true and correct. Again, this is Not True!
The Town has rules, policies, and regulations in place for everyone to follow, that includes all
Town Staff Personnel and all Applicants.
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried
forward/continuation?
The application contains false and inaccurate information that the developer Frank Theis
acknowledged at the July 3rd neighborhood meeting and stated that there would be
another meeting to follow.
Why, I ask concerningly, has nothing been done to address this situation?
I seriously urge the Planning Commissioners and the Town Board to deny this application
for rezoning!
Thank you!
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. – Estes Park
Page 304
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:31:16 -0500
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Town Board letter.docx
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 305
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:31:16 -0500
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Town Board letter.docx
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 306
While the current application is a limited approach to
rezoning the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the
intent letters submitted in previous rezoning requests. Has
the applicant’s intent changed? NO
His stated intent is to create a new neighborhood, not to
build in compatibility with the existing one. It’s more
likely that this is an interim strategy to ultimately achieve
his original goal of rezoning all 7.62 acres, thereby
increasing the housing density to a level different from
and inconsistent with the current allowed density in an
area with starkly different development patterns.
At each meeting held by the applicant, there was little or
no support for a change but there was vigorous
opposition. There is also a large volume of input to the
Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685 Peak
View. The opposition has been engaged but has not
always been welcomed.
It seems to anger some of the Town staff, and some look
upon us as “NIMBYs”. We are not NIMBYs but citizens
concerned about our Town’s future and we want to be
heard. We want and should have an environment where
citizens are not criticized or chastised when engaged in
town affairs. Our goal is to make our Town's future as
bright as possible.
Page 307
Let’s start by simply maintaining the recently approved
and long-standing 1-acre lot plan and staying in line with
our guiding documents.
As we ponder future development here, we must carefully
consider where it goes and how it goes into our existing
landscape, so we don’t kill what we have.
We are hopeful and cautiously optimistic that your
decisions will comply with the Code and the Plan, both of
which advise us to cautiously weigh the pros and cons of
each development proposal, and in this case, just say NO.
Jan Scott
512 Devon Dr.
Page 308
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:52:05 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>;
"'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View-July17-2023-Ltr1.pdf
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a received
a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
Page 309
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:52:05 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>;
"'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View-July17-2023-Ltr1.pdf
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a received
a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
Page 310
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:31:16 -0500
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Town Board letter.docx
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 311
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:31:16 -0500
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Town Board letter.docx
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 312
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:52:05 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>;
"'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View-July17-2023-Ltr1.pdf
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a received
a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
Page 313
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:31:16 -0500
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Town Board letter.docx
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 314
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:52:05 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>;
"'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View-July17-2023-Ltr1.pdf
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a received
a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
Page 315
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:52:05 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>;
"'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View-July17-2023-Ltr1.pdf
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a received
a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
Page 316
From: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:52:05 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Community
Development" <planning@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>;
"mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>; "mheiser@estes.org" <mheiser@estes.org>;
"'tmachalek@estes.org'" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View-July17-2023-Ltr1.pdf
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a received
a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
Page 317
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:31:16 -0500
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Town Board letter.docx
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 318
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:31:16 -0500
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Attachments: Town Board letter.docx
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 319
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:28:06 -0600
To: "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 320
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 321
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:28:06 -0600
To: "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 322
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 323
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:28:06 -0600
To: "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 324
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 325
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:28:06 -0600
To: "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 326
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 327
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:28:06 -0600
To: "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 328
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 329
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 18:28:06 -0600
To: "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org"
<planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 330
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 331
From: Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com>
Sent: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:38:50 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Private
Thank you again Mayor.
While I am very disappointed, it didn’t hurt to ask :(
After over 9 months of not being able to speak, I was hopeful that people who cannot physically
be present would be allowed as vis a vis is a much more effective form of communication.
Post humus testimony is even frequently allowed :).
I thank you for your reply.
Warmly,
KLP
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Sep 5, 2023, at 9:27 AM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Kristine,
As I stated, in my previous note, we like to have people present when there are
comments. Those unable to be present are more than welcome to send their
comments to the town board members, and their comments will be in the packets.
This is an acceptable hearing format. Mayor.
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 9:08 AM Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com>
wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Hahn you for your reply.
I hope that you had a nice weekend.
The 685 PV is on the Town calendar for 9/26/23; however I do not believe that
the Applicant has met requirements and deadlines.
What is preventing people who cannot attend from submitting a voice or video, 3
minutes or less, to be played at the TB Meeting?
2-3 people would be great.
I do not understand how this would not be allowed.
I thank you for your thorough reply.
Yes, we will have the slides aligned with the Speakers.
We’re prepared and will be effective and efficient.
This will be a long meeting.
Page 332
Again, I thank you Mayor.
Warmly,
KLP
PS I hope that I did not offend you by asking about your re-election plans.
If I did, it was not intentional!
I’m simply curious.
I will await your decision like everyone else.
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Aug 31, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
wrote:
Hi Kristine,
I just returned home from the PRPA meeting.
At this time it does not appear that the Peakview hearing will be at
our next board meeting. However, when you find it on the final
agenda, which occurs the Wednesday before the town board meeting
I will verify for you that the hearing is happening. Your group will be
allowed to speak at that hearing, and the organization of the slides
will be important so the speakers from your group have no problem
giving their testimony. There will be a three minute time limit per
speaker. And I understand there will be one picture per speaker.
The individuals who are not available in person for the hearing will
need to submit their comments in written format, addressing them to
the Board of Trustees. Another option is addressing them to the
clerks office to disseminate to the board of trustees. They will be
included in the packet. I believe this will be the most efficient way to
run the Hearing.
I will discuss with the clerks office how to handle the public sign-up
sheet for the hearing. As we want the sign up sheet to match the order
of the pictures. Perhaps we can put the names in order of those
providing the comments that correspond to the picture when the sign-
up sheet is initially put out.
Have a good evening Kristine.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
Page 333
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Wendy Koenig
<wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
👍
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:34 PM Kristine L Poppitz
<KJPOPPITZ@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3
minutes allowed and will have a slide (not slide show)
for each Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her
timeline, and be on the screen for each Speaker to
click to their slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the
12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated
Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I
await your reply on Friday.
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages.
I will get back to yo by Friday. I will be in Fort Collins
tomorrow at platte River power Authority board
meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will
need to give their name and address clearly at the
Page 334
beginning of the recording. I think these will need to
be limited to two or three people. I will connect
Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L
Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as
most are.
It has been nice hearing about your
travels and your Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings
back memories of our Daughter starting
here at EPES as you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you
to confirm two (2) items as well as to ask
about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming
Town Board meeting on 9/26/23 where
you and the Board are scheduled to hear
the proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision
requests for 685 Peak View Drive which
you have now been hearing about for
almost nine (9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board
Meeting, during Public Comment, I asked
you about having a slide show during our
three (3) minutes of Public Comment for
the upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this
and it was left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three
(3) minutes and that you would allow a
slide show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not
changed your mind as we prepare for this
very important meeting.
Page 335
I also wanted to ask about recordings,
either video and audio or strictly audio,
from Citizens who are unable to be
physically present to speak at the
meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not
allow three (3) minutes from a recording
to be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be
heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be
heard via a recording, please let me
know.
I presume that this is your decision as the
aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another
Citizen give up their three (3) minutes by
stepping up to the mic and playing the
recording; however, most people want to
use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to
be heard, to be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings
off of phones or simple video recordings
within your very generous three (3)
minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person,
at your convenience, or I will await your
reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if
you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 336
From: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 01:14:14 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Private: a few items
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels and your Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back memories of our Daughter starting here at EPES as
you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to confirm two (2) items as well as to ask about
another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town Board meeting on 9/26/23 where you and the Board
are scheduled to hear the proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision requests for 685 Peak View
Drive which you have now been hearing about for almost nine (9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting, during Public Comment, I asked you about having a
slide show during our three (3) minutes of Public Comment for the upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and it was left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three (3) minutes and that you would allow a slide show
during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not changed your mind as we prepare for this very
important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings, either video and audio or strictly audio, from Citizens
who are unable to be physically present to speak at the meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not allow three (3) minutes from a recording to be played at
the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be heard via a recording, please let me know.
I presume that this is your decision as the aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another Citizen give up their three (3) minutes by stepping up to
the mic and playing the recording; however, most people want to use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be heard, to be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off of phones or simple video recordings within your
very generous three (3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at your convenience, or I will await your reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 337
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 21:01:38 -0600
To: "Dan Kramer" <dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: PRIVATE: Fwd: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission
Meeting
I forgot to add your name to the original email. Here you go. Enjoy the river float!
Mayor Koenig
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:58 PM
Subject: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
To: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: Matt Comstock <mcomstock@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>
Good evening Laura,
I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at the Planning Commission
Meeting. I want to thank you again for bringing this to the table at the trustee outreach meeting
last Thursday at Town Hall.
The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the withdrawal of the
application. The withdrawal was acknowledged and approved by the Board without asking for
public comment after the item was read by the Chair. . The moment Chair Comstock asked for
the acknowledgment and there was no objection from Planning Commission members, the item
was technically officially removed from the agenda and any discussion. That removal formally
activated the new application that had been submitted to replace the application that was
removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the replacement applications' existence.
This is why he counseled not to allow comment once the item was verified as removed from
further discussion and action by the Planning Commission.
There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the meeting. you attended. No
further public comment could be taken for the item that had been removed by the Board. Your
comments, if made after the acknowledgement of the 685 application removal would have fallen
into the category of "Ex Parte Communication".
I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee MacAlpine and confirmed the
information about the sequence of events from her.
I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I have chaired. I certainly
learned from looking into this. In your situation, I too would have felt very upset.
Please consider attending the next Planning Commission Meeting. You may speak at the
beginning of the meeting as a non-agenda item comment if 685 Peakview is not printed on the
Page 338
agenda. If there is an agenda item regarding 685 Peak view on the meeting agenda, you will be
allowed to speak.when public comment is taken in the hearing.
It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is adequate. Importantly, I hope
you will return to make your important comments. As always you may email them to the
Planning Commission Board directly.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 339
From: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:57:26 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: problems with one of the Town's departments
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your property?
We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about our adopted
codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins are
welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff member is
available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications
such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following statement,
recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara
looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to four
overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and so I
agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it gets
rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a
half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
Page 340
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with questions
or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or
business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out the
fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three half-acre
lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on June 26, 2023.
By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the developer eliminated
the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than inform
this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist him with
questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property, and does more
than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Division gives this
developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had not thought of himself,
and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice concerned how the developer
could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five
or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This is the code the Planning and Zoning
Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope you
will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 341
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 342
From: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:57:26 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: problems with one of the Town's departments
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your property?
We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about our adopted
codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins are
welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff member is
available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications
such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following statement,
recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara
looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to four
overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and so I
agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it gets
rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a
half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
Page 343
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with questions
or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or
business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out the
fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three half-acre
lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on June 26, 2023.
By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the developer eliminated
the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than inform
this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist him with
questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property, and does more
than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Division gives this
developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had not thought of himself,
and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice concerned how the developer
could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five
or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This is the code the Planning and Zoning
Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope you
will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 344
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 345
From: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:57:26 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: problems with one of the Town's departments
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your property?
We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about our adopted
codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins are
welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff member is
available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications
such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following statement,
recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara
looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to four
overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and so I
agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it gets
rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a
half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
Page 346
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with questions
or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or
business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out the
fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three half-acre
lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on June 26, 2023.
By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the developer eliminated
the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than inform
this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist him with
questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property, and does more
than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Division gives this
developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had not thought of himself,
and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice concerned how the developer
could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five
or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This is the code the Planning and Zoning
Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope you
will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 347
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 348
From: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:57:26 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: problems with one of the Town's departments
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your property?
We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about our adopted
codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins are
welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff member is
available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications
such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following statement,
recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara
looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to four
overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and so I
agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it gets
rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a
half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
Page 349
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with questions
or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or
business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out the
fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three half-acre
lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on June 26, 2023.
By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the developer eliminated
the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than inform
this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist him with
questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property, and does more
than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Division gives this
developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had not thought of himself,
and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice concerned how the developer
could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five
or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This is the code the Planning and Zoning
Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope you
will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 350
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 351
From: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:57:26 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: problems with one of the Town's departments
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your property?
We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about our adopted
codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins are
welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff member is
available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications
such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following statement,
recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara
looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to four
overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and so I
agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it gets
rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a
half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
Page 352
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with questions
or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or
business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out the
fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three half-acre
lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on June 26, 2023.
By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the developer eliminated
the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than inform
this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist him with
questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property, and does more
than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Division gives this
developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had not thought of himself,
and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice concerned how the developer
could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five
or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This is the code the Planning and Zoning
Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope you
will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 353
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 354
From: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:57:26 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: problems with one of the Town's departments
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your property?
We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about our adopted
codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins are
welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff member is
available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications
such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following statement,
recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara
looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to four
overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and so I
agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it gets
rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a
half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
Page 355
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with questions
or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or
business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out the
fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three half-acre
lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on June 26, 2023.
By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the developer eliminated
the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than inform
this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist him with
questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property, and does more
than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Division gives this
developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had not thought of himself,
and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice concerned how the developer
could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five
or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This is the code the Planning and Zoning
Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope you
will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 356
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 357
From: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:57:26 -0600
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Patrick Martchink"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: problems with one of the Town's departments
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your property?
We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about our adopted
codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins are
welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff member is
available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development applications
such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following statement,
recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so Kara
looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to four
overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and so I
agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it gets
rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller than a
half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
Page 358
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with questions
or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or
business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space of
15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out the
fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three half-acre
lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on June 26, 2023.
By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the developer eliminated
the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than inform
this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist him with
questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property, and does more
than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning Division gives this
developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had not thought of himself,
and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice concerned how the developer
could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent open space for subdivisions of five
or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This is the code the Planning and Zoning
Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope you
will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 359
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 360
From: Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:45:25 -0700
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: Re-Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.docx, Re-
Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.doc
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in
whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction
distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second
purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their
properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the
desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre property
that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every neighboring
property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this
proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
Page 361
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any
other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved
street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62
acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and
along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With
the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals offered to date, runoff
will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be sufficient to contain that amount
of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing
winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by
the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift
accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of
the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can
imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire
initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and
Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally,
The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing
opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for a large number of
individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and
resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings
will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient
residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of
understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further,
despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic nature of the eventual
dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents, even including a very
large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per
the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood, all
being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to draw
off of the existing electrical grid!
Page 362
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that
dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots
in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all
current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property
values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important
consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed change
amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained
by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities
around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of
my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed
layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I
have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my former home (in
another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating
etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes beyond just aesthetics,
but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric, sewer, as well as additional
issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the development. There are other
professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more experience and more
credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better insight than my
own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted and
their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning
this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to
live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those
towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my
decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular
business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local
residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique character of those
towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values treasured by the long time
residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend their money in their
towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns, but the towns were
never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned and took
their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning &
Page 363
Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for
himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their
life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a
wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six
homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels,
also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem within our community. There is
a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our
neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change to
the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 364
From: Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:45:25 -0700
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: Re-Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.docx, Re-
Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.doc
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in
whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction
distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second
purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their
properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the
desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre property
that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every neighboring
property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this
proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
Page 365
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any
other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved
street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62
acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and
along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With
the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals offered to date, runoff
will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be sufficient to contain that amount
of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing
winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by
the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift
accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of
the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can
imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire
initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and
Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally,
The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing
opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for a large number of
individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and
resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings
will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient
residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of
understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further,
despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic nature of the eventual
dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents, even including a very
large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per
the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood, all
being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to draw
off of the existing electrical grid!
Page 366
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that
dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots
in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all
current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property
values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important
consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed change
amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained
by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities
around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of
my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed
layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I
have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my former home (in
another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating
etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes beyond just aesthetics,
but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric, sewer, as well as additional
issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the development. There are other
professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more experience and more
credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better insight than my
own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted and
their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning
this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to
live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those
towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my
decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular
business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local
residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique character of those
towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values treasured by the long time
residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend their money in their
towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns, but the towns were
never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned and took
their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning &
Page 367
Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for
himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their
life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a
wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six
homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels,
also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem within our community. There is
a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our
neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change to
the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 368
From: Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:45:25 -0700
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: Re-Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.docx, Re-
Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.doc
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in
whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction
distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second
purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their
properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the
desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre property
that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every neighboring
property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this
proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
Page 369
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any
other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved
street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62
acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and
along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With
the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals offered to date, runoff
will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be sufficient to contain that amount
of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing
winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by
the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift
accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of
the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can
imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire
initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and
Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally,
The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing
opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for a large number of
individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and
resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings
will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient
residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of
understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further,
despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic nature of the eventual
dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents, even including a very
large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per
the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood, all
being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to draw
off of the existing electrical grid!
Page 370
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that
dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots
in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all
current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property
values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important
consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed change
amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained
by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities
around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of
my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed
layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I
have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my former home (in
another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating
etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes beyond just aesthetics,
but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric, sewer, as well as additional
issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the development. There are other
professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more experience and more
credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better insight than my
own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted and
their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning
this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to
live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those
towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my
decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular
business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local
residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique character of those
towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values treasured by the long time
residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend their money in their
towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns, but the towns were
never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned and took
their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning &
Page 371
Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for
himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their
life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a
wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six
homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels,
also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem within our community. There is
a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our
neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change to
the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 372
From: Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:45:25 -0700
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: Re-Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.docx, Re-
Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.doc
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in
whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction
distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second
purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their
properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the
desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre property
that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every neighboring
property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this
proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
Page 373
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any
other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved
street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62
acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and
along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With
the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals offered to date, runoff
will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be sufficient to contain that amount
of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing
winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by
the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift
accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of
the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can
imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire
initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and
Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally,
The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing
opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for a large number of
individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and
resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings
will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient
residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of
understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further,
despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic nature of the eventual
dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents, even including a very
large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per
the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood, all
being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to draw
off of the existing electrical grid!
Page 374
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that
dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots
in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all
current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property
values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important
consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed change
amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained
by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities
around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of
my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed
layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I
have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my former home (in
another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating
etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes beyond just aesthetics,
but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric, sewer, as well as additional
issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the development. There are other
professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more experience and more
credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better insight than my
own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted and
their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning
this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to
live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those
towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my
decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular
business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local
residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique character of those
towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values treasured by the long time
residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend their money in their
towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns, but the towns were
never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned and took
their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning &
Page 375
Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for
himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their
life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a
wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six
homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels,
also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem within our community. There is
a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our
neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change to
the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 376
From: Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:45:25 -0700
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: Re-Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.docx, Re-
Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.doc
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in
whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction
distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second
purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their
properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the
desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre property
that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every neighboring
property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this
proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
Page 377
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any
other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved
street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62
acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and
along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With
the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals offered to date, runoff
will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be sufficient to contain that amount
of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing
winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by
the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift
accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of
the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can
imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire
initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and
Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally,
The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing
opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for a large number of
individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and
resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings
will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient
residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of
understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further,
despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic nature of the eventual
dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents, even including a very
large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per
the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood, all
being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to draw
off of the existing electrical grid!
Page 378
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that
dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots
in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all
current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property
values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important
consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed change
amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained
by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities
around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of
my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed
layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I
have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my former home (in
another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating
etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes beyond just aesthetics,
but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric, sewer, as well as additional
issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the development. There are other
professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more experience and more
credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better insight than my
own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted and
their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning
this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to
live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those
towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my
decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular
business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local
residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique character of those
towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values treasured by the long time
residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend their money in their
towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns, but the towns were
never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned and took
their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning &
Page 379
Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for
himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their
life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a
wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six
homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels,
also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem within our community. There is
a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our
neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change to
the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 380
From: Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:45:25 -0700
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: Re-Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.docx, Re-
Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.doc
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in
whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction
distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second
purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their
properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the
desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre property
that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every neighboring
property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this
proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
Page 381
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any
other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved
street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62
acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and
along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With
the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals offered to date, runoff
will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be sufficient to contain that amount
of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing
winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by
the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift
accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of
the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can
imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire
initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and
Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally,
The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing
opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for a large number of
individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and
resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings
will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient
residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of
understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further,
despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic nature of the eventual
dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents, even including a very
large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per
the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood, all
being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to draw
off of the existing electrical grid!
Page 382
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that
dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots
in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all
current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property
values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important
consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed change
amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained
by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities
around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of
my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed
layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I
have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my former home (in
another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating
etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes beyond just aesthetics,
but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric, sewer, as well as additional
issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the development. There are other
professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more experience and more
credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better insight than my
own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted and
their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning
this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to
live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those
towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my
decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular
business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local
residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique character of those
towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values treasured by the long time
residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend their money in their
towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns, but the towns were
never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned and took
their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning &
Page 383
Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for
himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their
life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a
wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six
homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels,
also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem within our community. There is
a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our
neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change to
the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 384
From: Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:45:25 -0700
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Attachments: Re-Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.docx, Re-
Zoning Concerns Re To 7.62 Acre Property In Estes Park_working.doc
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in
whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction
distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second
purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their
properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the
desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre property
that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every neighboring
property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this
proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
Page 385
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any
other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved
street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62
acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and
along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With
the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals offered to date, runoff
will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be sufficient to contain that amount
of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing
winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by
the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift
accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of
the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can
imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire
initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and
Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally,
The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing
opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for a large number of
individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and
resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings
will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient
residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of
understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further,
despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic nature of the eventual
dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents, even including a very
large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per
the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood, all
being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to draw
off of the existing electrical grid!
Page 386
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that
dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots
in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all
current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property
values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important
consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed change
amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained
by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities
around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of
my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed
layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I
have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my former home (in
another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating
etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes beyond just aesthetics,
but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric, sewer, as well as additional
issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the development. There are other
professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more experience and more
credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better insight than my
own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted and
their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning
this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to
live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those
towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my
decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular
business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local
residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique character of those
towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values treasured by the long time
residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend their money in their
towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns, but the towns were
never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned and took
their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning &
Page 387
Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for
himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their
life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a
wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six
homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels,
also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem within our community. There is
a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our
neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change to
the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 388
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in whole or in
part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction distinct from that specified
by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second purpose is to describe several probable
and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to achieve
success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the opportunity to select
a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy and relaxation as well. The
properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the desires and requirements for the
homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in which to live. Most have invested significant
monetary resources to live within our neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of
dwellings on this 7.62 acre property that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts
on every neighboring property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is
not in conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this proposal
put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to establish precedent in
changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving the intended goal for creating a
high-density development thereon! As stated, any such development will severely impact adjoining
properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any other large
packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved street, servicing the
new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62 acres. The volume of water
descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is
already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With the hardened surfaces attendant with the several
construction proposals offered to date, runoff will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not
be sufficient to contain that amount of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing winds in
an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by the construction
will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift accumulations on Peak View
Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of the construction. Other recent
construction has already demonstrated this behavior. One can imagine what such winds could do with
flames in the event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly exaggerated during
the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and Peak View providing an
alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally, The Thumb located on Prospect
Page 389
Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing opportunities for enthusiasts which comes
with associated traffic for a large number of individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and resulting
noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings will destroy the
peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient residents of the eventual
dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of understanding for local issues such as fire
that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further, despite any proposed covenants for the future
development, the basic nature of the eventual dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of
residents, even including a very large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require significant
enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings constructed within a
large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per the application by CMS. For
some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are concerns for available water pressure and
water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly 50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive
and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles
within the greater neighborhood, all being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these
EV’s attempting to draw off of the existing electrical grid!
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote new
construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that dwellings that
are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s imagination in order to believe
such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the lower or medium income population! As
such, there can only be uncertainty about what the future for this uncertain development becomes in terms
of future residents, rentals, upkeep, etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented,
how can the current neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of
re-zoning, actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots in initial
proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all current residents
within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property values. The minimum lot
size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important consideration for residents choosing to
purchase property in this area. The proposed change amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the
back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained by living
within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities around the country.
Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of my concerns. Prior to my
engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed layouts of several subdivisions for the
Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I have designed numerous homes and, in fact,
specifically constructed my former home (in another State) with my very own hands, including all
carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments
that goes beyond just aesthetics, but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric,
sewer, as well as additional issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the
development. There are other professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more
experience and more credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better
insight than my own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be
consulted and their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for
re-zoning this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to live out my
life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those towns possessed the
character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my decisions about them, changes
Page 390
began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular business operations, particular local
politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local residents with proposed changes and
structures that destroyed the unique character of those towns. The towns became a mess that no longer
reflected those values treasured by the long time residents and which had also attracted so many to visit
and spend their money in their towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns,
but the towns were never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned
and took their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning & Development
wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for himself. Most folks wish
to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their life’s work or even when the end of life
arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current
zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood.
Consider our former Mayor Dannels, also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem
within our community. There is a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make
the right decision for our neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are not placed
into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and their “special
interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated individuals. Town residents value their
homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their heritage, and the character of the town in which they
live. I urge town officials to consider seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against
the proposed zoning change to the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 391
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very strong
objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in whole or in
part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or construction distinct from that specified
by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre parcel. The second purpose is to describe several probable
and concerning impacts to neighboring residents and their properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to achieve
success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the opportunity to select
a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy and relaxation as well. The
properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met the desires and requirements for the
homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in which to live. Most have invested significant
monetary resources to live within our neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings
on this 7.62 acre property that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every
neighboring property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is not in
conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further, this proposal put
forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to establish precedent in
changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving the intended goal for creating a
high-density development thereon! As stated, any such development will severely impact adjoining
properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or any other large
packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and paved street, servicing the
new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from the 7.62 acres. The volume of water
descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing properties and along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is
already huge during heavy sustained down-pours. With the hardened surfaces attendant with the several
construction proposals offered to date, runoff will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be
sufficient to contain that amount of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the prevailing winds in an
area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds diverted by the construction will
carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large snow drift accumulations on Peak View Drive
and against outside walls of homes to the south and east of the construction. Other recent construction
has already demonstrated this behavior. One can imagine what such winds could do with flames in the
event of a wildfire or a dwelling fire initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly exaggerated during
the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake and Peak View providing an
alternative through-way for access to the National Park. Additionally, The Thumb located on Prospect
Mountain, now owned by Estes Park, provides Rock Climbing opportunities for enthusiasts which comes
with associated traffic for a large number of individuals embracing that adventure.
Page 392
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic and resulting
noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new dwellings will destroy the
peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable transient residents of the eventual
dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely lack of understanding for local issues such as fire
that could endanger the larger neighborhood. Further, despite any proposed covenants for the future
development, the basic nature of the eventual dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of
residents, even including a very large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require significant
enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings constructed within a
large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as per the application by CMS. For
some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are concerns for available water pressure and
water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly 50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive
and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles
within the greater neighborhood, all being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these
EV’s attempting to draw off of the existing electrical grid!
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote new
construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is that dwellings that
are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s imagination in order to believe
such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the lower or medium income population! As
such, there can only be uncertainty about what the future for this uncertain development becomes in terms
of future residents, rentals, upkeep, etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented,
how can the current neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-
zoning, actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39 lots in initial
proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily all current residents within
the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased property values. The minimum lot size
defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an important consideration for residents choosing to purchase
property in this area. The proposed change amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all
of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations gained by living
within this current community and further by direct observation of other communities around the country.
Additionally, I have actual occupational background that supports many of my concerns. Prior to my
engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I directly designed layouts of several subdivisions for the
Architectural-Engineering firm where I was employed. I have designed numerous homes and, in fact,
specifically constructed my former home (in another State) with my very own hands, including all
carpentry, plumbing, electrical, heating etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments
that goes beyond just aesthetics, but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric,
sewer, as well as additional issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the
development. There are other professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with more
experience and more credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer even better
insight than my own into the several specific concerns cited above. These individuals should be consulted
and their recommendations must be seriously considered when evaluating the proposal for re-zoning this
7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire to live out my
life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While those towns possessed the
character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made my decisions about them, changes
began to overtake those towns. Various interests of particular business operations, particular local
politicians, and particular builders began to overwhelm local residents with proposed changes and
structures that destroyed the unique character of those towns. The towns became a mess that no longer
Page 393
reflected those values treasured by the long time residents and which had also attracted so many to visit
and spend their money in their towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns,
but the towns were never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never again returned
and took their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes Park and is exampled right
here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as Frank Theis/CMS Planning & Development
wish to change the character of our neighborhood with great financial reward for himself. Most folks wish
to have a proud legacy to leave behind when they retire from their life’s work or even when the end of life
arrives. I would suggest that Frank Theis could have a wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current
zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six homes thereon consistent with the current neighborhood.
Consider our former Mayor Dannels, also a builder, who’s legacy continues to be held in high esteem
within our community. There is a reason for that! The same could be for Frank Theis were he to make the
right decision for our neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are not placed
into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and their “special
interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated individuals. Town residents value their
homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their heritage, and the character of the town in which they
live. I urge town officials to consider seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against
the proposed zoning change to the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 394
From: Patience Ellis <pellis50@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 15:50:00 -0600
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View Rezoning Application by Frank Theis
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board:
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of 2.33 acres of the property at 685 Peak View.
Please consider the following:
1) There has been absolutely no “change in conditions in the neighborhood”, which is required for a legal rezoning in
Colorado.
2) The proposed rezoning does not conform to the zoning called for in the recently adopted Town Comprehensive
Plan.
Given those two conditions, any rezoning by a local government can be considered spot zoning if the change benefits
a single land owner. Note that the majority of the adjacent property owners and over 1300+ others have signed
petitions and/or written letters objecting to any rezoning at 685 Peak View.
I believe it’s time to dispel any notion that the proposed rezoning would provide any economically attainable
workforce housing. Mr. Theis has already stated the lots would sell for market price and we all know that new
residential construction prices are well over $350 per SF. If my math is correct, houses could easily reach $850,000,
which will price out families making less or equal to the median county household income.
Sincerely,
Patience Ellis
1421 Prospect Mountain Rd.
Estes Park
Page 395
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:24:04 -0600
To: "Patience Ellis" <pellis50@aol.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View Rezoning Application by Frank Theis
Good afternoon Patience,
I have received and read your email. I am not allowed to
comment directly on the content.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:50 PM Patience Ellis <pellis50@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board:
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of 2.33 acres of the property at 685 Peak
View. Please consider the following:
1) There has been absolutely no “change in conditions in the neighborhood”, which is required for a legal rezoning
in Colorado.
2) The proposed rezoning does not conform to the zoning called for in the recently adopted Town Comprehensive
Plan.
Given those two conditions, any rezoning by a local government can be considered spot zoning if the change
benefits a single land owner. Note that the majority of the adjacent property owners and over 1300+ others have
signed petitions and/or written letters objecting to any rezoning at 685 Peak View.
I believe it’s time to dispel any notion that the proposed rezoning would provide any economically attainable
workforce housing. Mr. Theis has already stated the lots would sell for market price and we all know that new
residential construction prices are well over $350 per SF. If my math is correct, houses could easily reach
$850,000, which will price out families making less or equal to the median county household income.
Sincerely,
Patience Ellis
1421 Prospect Mountain Rd.
Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 396
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 11:54:21 -0600
To: "Jonathan Hauger" <tspjoha@gmail.com>; "Travis Machalek"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 peak view Theis debacle!!
Jonathan,
I have forwarded this to our town administrator Travis Michalek.
Mayor Koenig.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 15, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com> wrote:
This builder is greedy and dangerously incompetent for our city plan
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried
forward? It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He
acknowledged this at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be
another meeting.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation?
WHO BENEFITS??
Jonathan Hauger
Page 397
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:36:55 -0600
To: "Donna Strain" <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
Thank you for writing Donna. I read your comments.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 16, 2023, at 11:24 AM, Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane in
the Koral Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until now
we have seen new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value of the
area. We are very concerned about the zoning request 685 Peak View Drive that
will be completely out of character, size and value of the neighborhood, and would
respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of
observing the daily coming and going of wild life. Shortly after we purchased our
home the first of three McCord lots were taken out of the trust and sold. These three
lots are directly below our property. Our first thoughts were that this would impact
the animal’s movements. But the three homes that were built were in accordance
with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected on the deer and
other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will have a
profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive heat
and water needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense housing
would be toxic for our environment. We need to start now to preserve and protect
Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 398
From: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>
Sent: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:22:36 -0600
To: "Al Wagner" <awagz44@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
Mr. Wagner, I apologize for not responding sooner. Several short trips before and after
Memorial Day along with visits from relatives have interrupted my attention to town email
messages.
While I can't comment on the Peak View Drive application, I did want to point out that the Town
and the County are working on additional plans to deal with stormwater issues, not just in the
Estes Park downtown area but across our residential neighborhoods. A number of projects have
been identified since the Stormwater Master Plan was approved in 2019, and we are currently
addressing the question of funding. As someone whose house was impacted by the flood in
2013, you may be interested in joining the conversation when public discussions are held later
this year. I hope you will share your viewpoint and suggestions at that time.
Barbara MacAlpine
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 7:18 AM Al Wagner <awagz44@yahoo.com> wrote:
At the last planning meeting Mr. Theus raved about getting the storm culverts from his property that go
under peak view "blown out". Where is that water going?
In 2013 several of us down the hill had water damage during the flood of 13. I realize this was a very
unusual rain event, but what will happen if we build 30, 40 or 60 houses on 685? Will all the additional
storm water running from roofs, driveways, gutters, and streets end up in our basements again. Even
the Dannels' home on pinewood lane was effected including mine on dekker circle.
I'm sure your studies have addressed this situation and we can avoid "after the fact" concerns down
the road.
A H Wagner
1728 Dekker Circle
--
Barbara MacAlpine
Trustee
Town of Estes Park
Page 399
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 08:56:03 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>; "Travis Machalek"
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
I will get updated information to you Laura.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:30 AM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being
considered after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the
developer is calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 400
From: Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:55:07 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
I really appreciate the acknowledgement.
Donna
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 8:37 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Thank you for writing Donna. I read your comments.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 16, 2023, at 11:24 AM, Donna Strain <dstrain50@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Jimmie and Donna Strain. We bought our home at 1625 Vista View Lane
in the Koral Heights addition in 2013.
We bought in the area expecting consistency of development around us. Until
now we have seen new homes built that were in keeping with the size and value
of the area. We are very concerned about the zoning request 685 Peak View
Drive that will be completely out of character, size and value of the neighborhood,
and would respectfully request that you deny this zoning request.
Our house backs up to the Thumb open space and we have the privilege of
observing the daily coming and going of wild life. Shortly after we purchased our
home the first of three McCord lots were taken out of the trust and sold. These
three lots are directly below our property. Our first thoughts were that this would
impact the animal’s movements. But the three homes that were built were in
accordance with the current zoning and have not had the impact we expected on
the deer and other wildlife. The new development requested by the developer will
have a profound effect on wildlife and those of us who live in this area.
Most cities are trying to preserve and expand green space due to the excessive
heat and water needs that we are facing. The loss of this meadow to dense
housing would be toxic for our environment. We need to start now to preserve
and protect Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Jimmie and Donna Strain
Page 401
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:14:09 -0500
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Cc: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
I do understand that there are intricacies to the application process that I do not understand at all.
I still wonder about the combining of the rezoning and subdivision applications into one hearing,
since the subdivision comes into play only after a successful rezoning. (Correct?)
And I certainly wonder about an application being accepted with false information.
It is that issue with the application that concerns me the most.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:56 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
I will get updated information to you Laura.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:30 AM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still being
considered after the developer admitted that there are errors in the application. What the
developer is calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 402
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:21:19 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
Dear Laura,
As you know this is still Quasi-judicial . I cannot get in discussions with you Laura. Please
communicate with Travis.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2023, at 11:14 AM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I do understand that there are intricacies to the application process that I do not
understand at all.
I still wonder about the combining of the rezoning and subdivision applications into
one hearing, since the subdivision comes into play only after a successful
rezoning. (Correct?)
And I certainly wonder about an application being accepted with false information.
It is that issue with the application that concerns me the most.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 9:56 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
I will get updated information to you Laura.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:30 AM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I am still asking why the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View is still
being considered after the developer admitted that there are errors in the
application. What the developer is calling errors are actually falsifications.
Is anyone investigating this situation?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Page 403
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 404
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 11:12:55 -0600
To: "RONALD HOULETTE" <operasemi@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
Your message has been read Ronald.
Thank you,
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 16, 2023, at 8:54 AM, RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
wrote:
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be
workforce affordable housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is
no longer the case. Please deny this new application. Thank you. Ronald
Houlette
Page 405
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 15:33:43 -0600
To: "Stephanie a" <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak View
Thank you for sending your comments.
Mayor
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2023, at 2:48 PM, Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please see attached, Thank You.
Stephanie A. Pawson
Full Time Resident/Owner Meeker Drive
<TB Peak View Final.pdf>
Page 406
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 10:58:05 -0600
To: "Tom Kaszynski" <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak-View drive
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:36 AM Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com> wrote:
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those
who have lived here longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no
regard from input from those who live here. We just moved here when the whole mountain
coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed and got it then was voted out
but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his
actions except Frank and everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same
company for their entire life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more
people working remotely and take their 401ks with them when they move on. Most don’t
want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at
a job. They are waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see
it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles
have you read about national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as
well. How many parks have instituted a lottery or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the
park would have a park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking
lot for instance nor have they increased the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they
would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would just ruin it for everyone. If you
think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on
committees etc but that shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This
neighborhood will never be the same and those who come and visit will drive down peakview
and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees
Page 407
etc keep trying to do that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this
neighborhood that everyone bought in to at one home/acre
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 408
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:03:36 -0600
To: "Tom Kaszynski" <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peak-View drive
Thank you for your comments Tom.
Mayor Koenig
On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:36 AM Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com> wrote:
Planning Staff/Trustees/Mayor
I’ve only lived in Estes for about 6 years but over that time I’m constantly reminded by those
who have lived here longer that “ the town is gonna do what the town is gonna do” with no
regard from input from those who live here. We just moved here when the whole mountain
coaster issue went down. Someone wanted the zoning changed and got it then was voted out
but they ended up getting what they wanted anyway? Something like that?
Now Frank Theis wants 685 Peak-View rezoned? Nobody but Frank will benefit from his
actions except Frank and everyone knows it
Todays workforce is different than what we grew up with. Most of us worked for the same
company for their entire life to save and make a plan for the future. Nowadays there are more
people working remotely and take their 401ks with them when they move on. Most don’t
want a huge mortgage or to stay in one place
The more I talk to others still working I rarely hear anybody say that they are willing to stay at
a job. They are waiting for the next opportunity and will then move on. That’s the way I see
it anyway.
Everyone knows that this town wouldn’t be the same without the park. How many articles
have you read about national parks being “ loved to death?” Not just RMNP but others as
well. How many parks have instituted a lottery or reservation system to get in?
RMNP took the necessary steps by putting in the reservation system so that those visiting the
park would have a park experience. The park hasn’t increased the size of the bear lake parking
lot for instance nor have they increased the number of backcountry sites either. I’m sure they
would like to have the extra revenue etc but doing that would just ruin it for everyone. If you
think the lines are long now can you imagine if they didn’t have a system?
Don’t just give Frank the rubber stamp. I’m sure he has given a lot of volunteer time etc on
committees etc but that shouldn’t mean he can just do whatever he wants to do. This
neighborhood will never be the same and those who come and visit will drive down peakview
and say “ what’s happening to this town?”
Estes can’t accommodate everyone who wants to live here and if the town board and trustees
etc keep trying to do that then it will just ruin “ the experience “. There is no need to ruin this
neighborhood that everyone bought in to at one home/acre
Page 409
Tom kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
The park
Sent from my iPhone
Page 410
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:58:24 -0600
To: "Jed Eide" <jeide@alliarch.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview Rezoning
Thank you for sending your email Jed. I have read your points.
Mayor Koenig
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56 PM Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Town Board Members,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 411
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:59:21 -0600
To: "Rebecca Urquhart" <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Thank you for sending your comments Rebecca.
Mayor Koenig
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 3:36 PM Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com> wrote:
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is
still illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it
seems Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-
zoning the rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing
needs?. The harm from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 412
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 15:22:49 -0700
To: "nancy curtiss" <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Have a great day Nancy!
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2023, at 10:12 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your response.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:14 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Nancy,
Thank you for sending your comments.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 16, 2023, at 8:06 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the
rezoning of 685 Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your
decision.
>
> I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-
1. This complete disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in
compliance with the neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density
requested is out of character with the existing housing which conforms to one
house per acre.
>
> I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a
"change in condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move
forward. I fear that once 685 Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder
from deviating from the very vague proposals put forward by CMS/ Frank
Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to build at all, but
sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
>
> It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own
Page 413
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever
changing plan which has not followed procedure for local meeting with
neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the town's favorite term,
"Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that 1200
people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious
attempt to manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
>
> The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6
months of the year.
> I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a
recipe for disaster.
>
> I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in
the neighborhood would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as
currently zoned, would be most advantageous for all of Estes Park.
>
> Nancy and Mike Curtiss
> 1263 Juniper Drive
>
>
>
>
Page 414
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:13:51 -0700
To: "nancy curtiss" <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Hi Nancy,
Thank you for sending your comments.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 16, 2023, at 8:06 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of 685 Peakview. Spot
zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
>
> I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This complete disregard for the
very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the neighborhoods surrounding the property. The
density requested is out of character with the existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
>
> I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in condition" which would
allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685 Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder
from deviating from the very vague proposals put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting
that he does not intend to build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
>
> It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan which has not followed procedure for local
meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This
was never mentioned until he realized that 1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an
egregious attempt to manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
>
> The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the year.
> I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for disaster.
>
> I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the neighborhood would disagree
that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently zoned, would be most advantageous for all of Estes Park.
>
> Nancy and Mike Curtiss
> 1263 Juniper Drive
>
>
>
>
Page 415
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:33:17 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Thank you for your response.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 12:28 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Thank you for sending your comments. I have read them Nancy. Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 18, 2023, at 11:36 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan
that is continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood
opinion and the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
>
> Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
>
> Thank you
> Nancy Curtiss
Page 416
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 11:12:45 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Thank you for your response.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:14 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Nancy,
Thank you for sending your comments.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 16, 2023, at 8:06 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding the rezoning of
685 Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in your decision.
>
> I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-1. This
complete disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in compliance with the
neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density requested is out of character with the
existing housing which conforms to one house per acre.
>
> I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a "change in
condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move forward. I fear that once 685
Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder from deviating from the very vague proposals
put forward by CMS/ Frank Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to
build at all, but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
>
> It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their own
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and ever changing plan
which has not followed procedure for local meeting with neighbors. Of course, now Theis is
invoking the town's favorite term, "Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he
realized that 1200 people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious
attempt to manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
>
> The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for 6 months of the
year.
> I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is a recipe for
disaster.
>
> I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in the
neighborhood would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property, as currently
Page 417
zoned, would be most advantageous for all of Estes Park.
>
> Nancy and Mike Curtiss
> 1263 Juniper Drive
>
>
>
>
Page 418
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:28:11 -0600
To: "nancy curtiss" <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Thank you for sending your comments. I have read them Nancy. Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 18, 2023, at 11:36 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that is continuing to
change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion and the codes. There is no change of
condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
>
> Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as well as when he
purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
>
> Thank you
> Nancy Curtiss
Page 419
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:02:14 -0600
To: "nancy curtiss" <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 11:29 AM nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
I appreciate the work of the Town Board, as a resident of Estes for 35 years I understand the
dilemma of doing what is best for Estes Park.
However, what is best for Estes is to be very cautious when addressing zoning issues. The
proposed zoning of 685 Peakview is very contentious and locals are frustrated that we are not
being listened to. Please remember that we are your constituents.
It is quite clear that Frank Theis is attempting to re-zone the property in smaller increments in
an attempt to subvert the opposition to his development. Please consider the bigger picture
here. Over 1500 people have signed the petition against this zoning, you have received
countless letters and emails from people who are against it. And we also know that planning
commission recommendations are not necessarily how the town board will be voting. I urge
you to use your common sense when this comes to your vote, and to vote NO. This project is
unnecessary, unwanted, and unaffordable for the masses. I fear it could become a "patio
community" due to the fact that Frank Theis is not the builder, anyone from out of town or out
of state could come in and do anything they choose with the lots. It could turn into multiple
story condos once it is re-zoned. Please consider the worst case scenario, once the zoning is
changed we can never go back.
Estes has multiple housing projects being built now, could we over-build? Yes.
Frank Theis knew the zoning when he purchased the property, how shameful to abuse his past
connections to planning in Estes in an attempt to over ride the desires of current residents. This
property at 685 Peakview should remain as it is currently zoned. 6 lovely homes with 1 acre
lots is appropriate.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy Curtiss
Page 420
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:42:18 -0600
To: "nancy curtiss" <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Thank you…I have received and read your email. Marie
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:18 PM nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
As a member of the community directly affected by the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview, I
am contacting you again to share our view of this ill conceived project.
As you well know, when Frank Theis purchased this property he knew what the zoning was. I
find it stunning that our community leaders are implicated by Frank when he had his first
neighborhood meeting. I trust his comments were not true. However, his plan to slam through
a high density development in the middle of an existing neighborhood with one acre lots is un-
necessary, un-wanted and certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area.
It is quite clear that the current proposal is simply a delay tactic, if it passes of course he will
follow up by once again filing an application to continue his 30-some house
development. Don't be fooled by the "simple" request to build only 3 houses. It is not the end
of his mischief.
Please don't be fooled by this current zoning request, surely all of you are well aware of his
intentions. Please do the right thing for the RESIDENTS of Estes and do not allow this
current zoning request.
Nancy Curtiss
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 421
From: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 07:37:33 -0600
To: "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
thank you for acknowledging the email. Yes, I know it is quasi judicial.
RLU
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 8:21 AM Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org> wrote:
Rebecca,
I have read your email and thank you for your input. As you can understand, I should not
engage in conversation about the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 3:36 PM Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com> wrote:
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason
to detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have
found irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is
still illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it
seems Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-
zoning the rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing
needs?. The harm from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 422
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:24:09 -0600
To: "nancy curtiss" <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Nancy,
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:36 AM nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
Once again, please do not allow the rezoning of 685 Peakview. This is an egregious plan that
is continuing to change over and over so the developer can circumvent neighborhood opinion
and the codes. There is no change of condition. Spot zoning is illegal.
Please stop this madness and require Frank Theis to build or sell lots that are in place now as
well as when he purchased it. He knew the code when he bought the property.
Thank you
Nancy Curtiss
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 423
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:21:14 -0600
To: "Rebecca Urquhart" <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Rebecca,
I have read your email and thank you for your input. As you can understand, I should not engage
in conversation about the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 3:36 PM Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com> wrote:
I have written several emails about this, so let me just make short points on the re-zoning
application for 685 Peakview.
1. Procedurally, some real issues, such as circumventing subdivision process, but no reason to
detail here. Dan Kramer seems to come up with all sorts of justifications, which I have found
irrelevant or inapplicable.
2. My guess is that there will be a "what's the harm in just 3 houses there?" view. First, it is
still illegal spot re-zoning (as I said, not persuaded by Kramer's arguments), and second, it
seems Theis is just doing this phase to tamp down criticism, and open the legal door for re-
zoning the rest. The flip side then, is what good are 3 houses, instead of 1, for the housing
needs?. The harm from this precedent clearly outweighs any tiny benefit.
Rebecca L. Urquhart
Attorney at Law
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 424
From: nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 17 May 2023 08:16:40 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Peakview
Thanks, you too! I appreciate you taking time from your busy schedule to respond to me about
this issue Wendy.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:23 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Have a great day Nancy!
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2023, at 10:12 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your response.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:14 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Nancy,
Thank you for sending your comments.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 16, 2023, at 8:06 AM, nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I am once again contacting you to voice my very strong opinions regarding
the rezoning of 685 Peakview. Spot zoning is not legal, please consider this in
your decision.
>
> I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO REZONE FROM E-1 to R-
1. This complete disregard for the very citizens who vote in Estes Park is not in
compliance with the neighborhoods surrounding the property. The density
requested is out of character with the existing housing which conforms to one
house per acre.
>
> I understand that the planning commission considers this property ripe for a
"change in condition" which would allow this dangerous project to move
forward. I fear that once 685 Peakview is rezoned, nothing will stop a builder
from deviating from the very vague proposals put forward by CMS/ Frank
Page 425
Theis. Frank himself said at a meeting that he does not intend to build at all,
but sell lots to developers. Thus, no guarantee of consistency of any kind.
>
> It is interesting and very confusing that the town would deviate from their
own Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to accommodate a vague and
ever changing plan which has not followed procedure for local meeting with
neighbors. Of course, now Theis is invoking the town's favorite term,
"Workforce Housing". This was never mentioned until he realized that 1200
people are against this proposal. I agree that this appears to be an egregious
attempt to manipulate the local zoning process for the benefit of one individual.
>
> The "traffic study" does not mention the many campers using Peak View for
6 months of the year.
> I am concerned about runoff and the impact any rezoning may cause. This is
a recipe for disaster.
>
> I strongly urge you to deny this rezoning. I am quite sure none of us living in
the neighborhood would disagree that building 6 luxury homes on the property,
as currently zoned, would be most advantageous for all of Estes Park.
>
> Nancy and Mike Curtiss
> 1263 Juniper Drive
>
>
>
>
Page 426
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:35:31 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Ha!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:34 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks.
Thanks also for this great weather!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:30 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hello Laura,
You email is on record.
Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried
forward? It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He
acknowledged this at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be
another meeting to discuss the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due
to the hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Page 427
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 428
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:55:10 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
And play with my grandson who will be 3 next month.
It took me a long time to achieve grandmotherhood, but I intend to luxuriate in it next month.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:52 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
I hope the surgery is a success! It is nice you can help her.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2023, at 4:50 PM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
We are leaving for our daughter's next week. She lives in South Texas, and is
having surgery.
Can you say 104 degrees every day?
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:35 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Ha!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:34 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks.
Thanks also for this great weather!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:30 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
wrote:
Hello Laura,
You email is on record.
Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been
allowed to be carried forward? It contains false information that the
Page 429
developer acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this at the
neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another
meeting to discuss the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated
on the application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some
explanations are surely due to the hundreds of citizens concerned about
this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 430
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 17:01:06 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
My youngest 5. He is delightful.
Enjoy!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2023, at 4:55 PM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
And play with my grandson who will be 3 next month.
It took me a long time to achieve grandmotherhood, but I intend to luxuriate in it
next month.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:52 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
I hope the surgery is a success! It is nice you can help her.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2023, at 4:50 PM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
wrote:
We are leaving for our daughter's next week. She lives in South
Texas, and is having surgery.
Can you say 104 degrees every day?
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:35 PM Wendy Koenig
<wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Ha!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:34 PM Laura Rustin
<laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks.
Thanks also for this great weather!
Page 431
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:30 PM Wendy Koenig
<wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hello Laura,
You email is on record.
Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin
<laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View
been allowed to be carried forward? It contains false
information that the developer acknowledged was false. He
acknowledged this at the neighborhood meeting on July 3,
and stated that there would be another meeting to discuss
the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are
clearly stated on the application. THE REQUIREMENTS
WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this
situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 432
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:49:46 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
We are leaving for our daughter's next week. She lives in South Texas, and is having surgery.
Can you say 104 degrees every day?
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:35 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Ha!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:34 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks.
Thanks also for this great weather!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:30 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hello Laura,
You email is on record.
Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried
forward? It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He
acknowledged this at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would
be another meeting to discuss the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely
due to the hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Page 433
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 434
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:30:19 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Hello Laura,
You email is on record.
Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried
forward? It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He
acknowledged this at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be
another meeting to discuss the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 435
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:51:52 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
I hope the surgery is a success! It is nice you can help her.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2023, at 4:50 PM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
We are leaving for our daughter's next week. She lives in South Texas, and is
having surgery.
Can you say 104 degrees every day?
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:35 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Ha!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:34 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks.
Thanks also for this great weather!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:30 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hello Laura,
You email is on record.
Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed
to be carried forward? It contains false information that the developer
acknowledged was false. He acknowledged this at the neighborhood
meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be another meeting to
discuss the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated
on the application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Page 436
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations
are surely due to the hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 437
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:23:34 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Laura,
I have read your email and thank you for your input. As you can understand, I should not engage
in conversation about the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried
forward? It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He
acknowledged this at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be
another meeting to discuss the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to the
hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 438
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:34:37 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed
Thanks.
Thanks also for this great weather!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:30 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hello Laura,
You email is on record.
Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Why has the application for the rezoning of 685 Peak View been allowed to be carried
forward? It contains false information that the developer acknowledged was false. He
acknowledged this at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, and stated that there would be
another meeting to discuss the neighbor's concerns.
The application is a legal document. The requirements are clearly stated on the
application. THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
Why has nothing been done to address this situation? Some explanations are surely due to
the hundreds of citizens concerned about this.
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 439
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:33:22 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Good morning, Laura.
As you know, I do read your emails, I do forward them appropriately, and I do not directly
respond to 685 Peak View specific development questions. As long as there is an active
application for 685 Peak View the trustees and I are required to observe Quasi-Judicial
procedures. If we do not observe Quasi-Judicial procedures, we will have to remove
ourselves from the hearing on the 685 Peak View development.
I know of no other way to explain this to you. You have been encouraged to make your
comments at the hearing the Town Board will have in the future about the development. You
may also send them on our public portal and they will be included in the Board Packet. If you
so choose, you may speak at the Board meeting under non-agenda items. You will not receive
comments from the Board. Dan will comment verbally regarding speaking on Quasi-Judicial
items.
I do believe the Town Administrator has also emailed you regarding this question. Perhaps, your
email arrived at my desk before you read his direction regarding Quasi-Judicial procedures?
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:56 AM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I am still puzzled how this situation is different than all of the times over the last few months
that Kristine Poppitz has regularly spoken on this issue in the public comment portion of all
board meetings. She is out of town right now, and PEP wanted someone to maintain a public
presence.
As far as I can tell, there is no firm date set for any official discussion of the developer's plans
for that plot. Given the past activity on this issue, the future timing of any discussion is still
unknown.
I am also left wondering what, if any, reaction anyone had to my note or to the 17 minute
video of the "neighborhood meeting".
Mr. Theis acknowledged at the meeting that another meeting would have to be scheduled after
the problems with the application were pointed out to him. The most recent application as
submitted contains false statements, was signed by the developer and accepted by the town.
This continues to be a dismaying episode.
Page 440
Laura
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at
Town Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues
until those items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View
situation at the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any
comment at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023
that the process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at
the meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur
until that day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the
rezoning process started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not
true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application
is submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true
and correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation
includes several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Page 441
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 442
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:56:03 -0600
To: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
I thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I am still puzzled how this situation is different than all of the times over the last few months that
Kristine Poppitz has regularly spoken on this issue in the public comment portion of all board
meetings. She is out of town right now, and PEP wanted someone to maintain a public presence.
As far as I can tell, there is no firm date set for any official discussion of the developer's plans for
that plot. Given the past activity on this issue, the future timing of any discussion is still
unknown.
I am also left wondering what, if any, reaction anyone had to my note or to the 17 minute video
of the "neighborhood meeting".
Mr. Theis acknowledged at the meeting that another meeting would have to be scheduled after
the problems with the application were pointed out to him. The most recent application as
submitted contains false statements, was signed by the developer and accepted by the town.
This continues to be a dismaying episode.
Laura
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at
Town Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues
until those items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Page 443
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation
at the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment
at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the
process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation
includes several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 444
From: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:22:31 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at Town
Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues until those
items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at
the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at
this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process
really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
Page 445
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 446
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:56:03 -0600
To: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
I thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I am still puzzled how this situation is different than all of the times over the last few months that
Kristine Poppitz has regularly spoken on this issue in the public comment portion of all board
meetings. She is out of town right now, and PEP wanted someone to maintain a public presence.
As far as I can tell, there is no firm date set for any official discussion of the developer's plans for
that plot. Given the past activity on this issue, the future timing of any discussion is still
unknown.
I am also left wondering what, if any, reaction anyone had to my note or to the 17 minute video
of the "neighborhood meeting".
Mr. Theis acknowledged at the meeting that another meeting would have to be scheduled after
the problems with the application were pointed out to him. The most recent application as
submitted contains false statements, was signed by the developer and accepted by the town.
This continues to be a dismaying episode.
Laura
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at
Town Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues
until those items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Page 447
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation
at the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment
at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the
process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation
includes several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 448
From: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:22:31 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at Town
Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues until those
items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at
the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at
this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process
really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
Page 449
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 450
From: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:22:31 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at Town
Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues until those
items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at
the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at
this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process
really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
Page 451
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 452
From: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:22:31 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at Town
Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues until those
items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at
the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at
this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process
really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
Page 453
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 454
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:56:03 -0600
To: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
I thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I am still puzzled how this situation is different than all of the times over the last few months that
Kristine Poppitz has regularly spoken on this issue in the public comment portion of all board
meetings. She is out of town right now, and PEP wanted someone to maintain a public presence.
As far as I can tell, there is no firm date set for any official discussion of the developer's plans for
that plot. Given the past activity on this issue, the future timing of any discussion is still
unknown.
I am also left wondering what, if any, reaction anyone had to my note or to the 17 minute video
of the "neighborhood meeting".
Mr. Theis acknowledged at the meeting that another meeting would have to be scheduled after
the problems with the application were pointed out to him. The most recent application as
submitted contains false statements, was signed by the developer and accepted by the town.
This continues to be a dismaying episode.
Laura
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at
Town Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues
until those items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Page 455
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation
at the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment
at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the
process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation
includes several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 456
From: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:22:31 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at Town
Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues until those
items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at
the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at
this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process
really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
Page 457
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 458
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:56:03 -0600
To: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
I thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I am still puzzled how this situation is different than all of the times over the last few months that
Kristine Poppitz has regularly spoken on this issue in the public comment portion of all board
meetings. She is out of town right now, and PEP wanted someone to maintain a public presence.
As far as I can tell, there is no firm date set for any official discussion of the developer's plans for
that plot. Given the past activity on this issue, the future timing of any discussion is still
unknown.
I am also left wondering what, if any, reaction anyone had to my note or to the 17 minute video
of the "neighborhood meeting".
Mr. Theis acknowledged at the meeting that another meeting would have to be scheduled after
the problems with the application were pointed out to him. The most recent application as
submitted contains false statements, was signed by the developer and accepted by the town.
This continues to be a dismaying episode.
Laura
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at
Town Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues
until those items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Page 459
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation
at the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment
at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the
process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation
includes several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 460
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:56:03 -0600
To: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
I thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I am still puzzled how this situation is different than all of the times over the last few months that
Kristine Poppitz has regularly spoken on this issue in the public comment portion of all board
meetings. She is out of town right now, and PEP wanted someone to maintain a public presence.
As far as I can tell, there is no firm date set for any official discussion of the developer's plans for
that plot. Given the past activity on this issue, the future timing of any discussion is still
unknown.
I am also left wondering what, if any, reaction anyone had to my note or to the 17 minute video
of the "neighborhood meeting".
Mr. Theis acknowledged at the meeting that another meeting would have to be scheduled after
the problems with the application were pointed out to him. The most recent application as
submitted contains false statements, was signed by the developer and accepted by the town.
This continues to be a dismaying episode.
Laura
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at
Town Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues
until those items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Page 461
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation
at the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment
at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the
process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation
includes several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 462
From: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:22:31 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at Town
Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues until those
items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation at
the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment at
this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the process
really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
Page 463
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation includes
several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 464
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:56:03 -0600
To: "Travis Machalek" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Cc: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>; "flancaster@estes.org"
<flancaster@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "Dan Kramer"
<dkramer@estes.org>
Subject: Re: A new situation with the proposed 685 Peak View rezoning
I thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I am still puzzled how this situation is different than all of the times over the last few months that
Kristine Poppitz has regularly spoken on this issue in the public comment portion of all board
meetings. She is out of town right now, and PEP wanted someone to maintain a public presence.
As far as I can tell, there is no firm date set for any official discussion of the developer's plans for
that plot. Given the past activity on this issue, the future timing of any discussion is still
unknown.
I am also left wondering what, if any, reaction anyone had to my note or to the 17 minute video
of the "neighborhood meeting".
Mr. Theis acknowledged at the meeting that another meeting would have to be scheduled after
the problems with the application were pointed out to him. The most recent application as
submitted contains false statements, was signed by the developer and accepted by the town.
This continues to be a dismaying episode.
Laura
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:23 AM Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning Laura,
We ask that anyone with comments on quasi-judicial items hold those comments for the
appropriate public hearing. While the Board does not typically cut off public comment at
Town Board meetings, the Town does request that commenters avoid quasi-judicial issues
until those items are before the Board in a public hearing.
Best,
TM
Page 465
Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM
Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park, CO
970-577-3705
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:46 PM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Koenig and Mr. Kramer,
I am writing to find out if public comment will be allowed on the 685 Peak View situation
at the Town Board meeting on July 11, 2023.
There is currently no presentation scheduled before any government body for this
project. There MAY be one in the future, but should that possibility preclude any comment
at this time? It became apparent at the neighborhood meeting on July 3, 2023 that the
process really has to start all over again.
The article in the Trail Gazette on July 7, 2023 gave a good picture of what happened at the
meeting. Frank Theis acknowledged that the staking of the property did not occur until that
day.......July 7. However, on all of the paperwork he had filed since the rezoning process
started, he had stated that staking had already taken place. This was not true.
The application clearly states that "site staking must be completed at the time application is
submitted". Theis signed the form stating that all of the information included was true and
correct. It was not.
I am attaching a link to the video of Theis's presentation. The 17 minute presentation
includes several startling statements and admissions by Theis. The video is available
at https://vimeo.com/843489332.
Will public comment on this issue be allowed at the July 11 Town Board meeting?
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Page 466
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:44:06 -0600
To: "Ben kokenge" <ben@kokenge.com>
Subject: Re: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Good morning, Ben. I have read your email.
Mayor Koenig
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 6:24 AM Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com> wrote:
Hello, I would like to share an article published yesterday:
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/27/colorado-mountain-towns-opinion-carman/
In particular:
Colorado’s sweet, charming mountain towns are under siege from climate change,
hordes of outdoors enthusiasts, and eccentric real estate investors who think
the laws of the land and nature don’t apply to them.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
From: Ben kokenge
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: planning@estes.org; jwoeber@estes.org; jgarner@estes.org; swebermeier@estes.org;
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org; cyounglund@estes.org;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Page 467
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents
rather sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that
whatever tourism dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the
loss of the current caliber of tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the
“discount” community with homes stacked on top of one another? Would this also not invite
more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have
paved everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only
winners will be the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the
community.
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who
thinks this is a good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will
actually read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 468
From: Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com>
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:24:19 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "\"mcenac@estes.org\"" <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org"" < \
mcenac@estes.org\ <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>;
"\"bmacalpine@estes.org\"" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org"" < \
bmacalpine@estes.org\ <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "\"wkoenig@estes.org\"" <wkoenig@estes.org>," <
\ wkoenig@estes.org\ <wkoenig@estes.org>, >; "\" <\>; "tmachalek@estes.org\""
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to share an article published yesterday:
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/27/colorado-mountain-towns-opinion-carman/
In particular:
Colorado’s sweet, charming mountain towns are under siege from climate change,
hordes of outdoors enthusiasts, and eccentric real estate investors who think the
laws of the land and nature don’t apply to them.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
From: Ben kokenge
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: planning@estes.org; jwoeber@estes.org; jgarner@estes.org; swebermeier@estes.org;
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org; cyounglund@estes.org; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents rather
sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that whatever tourism
dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the loss of the current caliber of
tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the “discount” community with homes stacked
on top of one another? Would this also not invite more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have paved
everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only winners will be
the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the community.
Page 469
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who thinks this is a
good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will actually
read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 470
From: Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com>
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:24:19 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "\"mcenac@estes.org\"" <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org"" < \
mcenac@estes.org\ <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>;
"\"bmacalpine@estes.org\"" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org"" < \
bmacalpine@estes.org\ <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "\"wkoenig@estes.org\"" <wkoenig@estes.org>," <
\ wkoenig@estes.org\ <wkoenig@estes.org>, >; "\" <\>; "tmachalek@estes.org\""
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to share an article published yesterday:
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/27/colorado-mountain-towns-opinion-carman/
In particular:
Colorado’s sweet, charming mountain towns are under siege from climate change,
hordes of outdoors enthusiasts, and eccentric real estate investors who think the
laws of the land and nature don’t apply to them.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
From: Ben kokenge
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: planning@estes.org; jwoeber@estes.org; jgarner@estes.org; swebermeier@estes.org;
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org; cyounglund@estes.org; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents rather
sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that whatever tourism
dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the loss of the current caliber of
tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the “discount” community with homes stacked
on top of one another? Would this also not invite more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have paved
everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only winners will be
the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the community.
Page 471
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who thinks this is a
good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will actually
read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 472
From: Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com>
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:24:19 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "\"mcenac@estes.org\"" <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org"" < \
mcenac@estes.org\ <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>;
"\"bmacalpine@estes.org\"" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org"" < \
bmacalpine@estes.org\ <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "\"wkoenig@estes.org\"" <wkoenig@estes.org>," <
\ wkoenig@estes.org\ <wkoenig@estes.org>, >; "\" <\>; "tmachalek@estes.org\""
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to share an article published yesterday:
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/27/colorado-mountain-towns-opinion-carman/
In particular:
Colorado’s sweet, charming mountain towns are under siege from climate change,
hordes of outdoors enthusiasts, and eccentric real estate investors who think the
laws of the land and nature don’t apply to them.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
From: Ben kokenge
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: planning@estes.org; jwoeber@estes.org; jgarner@estes.org; swebermeier@estes.org;
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org; cyounglund@estes.org; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents rather
sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that whatever tourism
dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the loss of the current caliber of
tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the “discount” community with homes stacked
on top of one another? Would this also not invite more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have paved
everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only winners will be
the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the community.
Page 473
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who thinks this is a
good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will actually
read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 474
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:43 -0600
To: "Ben kokenge" <ben@kokenge.com>
Subject: Re: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:52 AM Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com> wrote:
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents
rather sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that
whatever tourism dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the
loss of the current caliber of tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the
“discount” community with homes stacked on top of one another? Would this also not invite
more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have
paved everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only
winners will be the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the
community.
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who
thinks this is a good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will
actually read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 475
From: Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com>
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:24:19 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "\"mcenac@estes.org\"" <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org"" < \
mcenac@estes.org\ <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>;
"\"bmacalpine@estes.org\"" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org"" < \
bmacalpine@estes.org\ <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "\"wkoenig@estes.org\"" <wkoenig@estes.org>," <
\ wkoenig@estes.org\ <wkoenig@estes.org>, >; "\" <\>; "tmachalek@estes.org\""
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to share an article published yesterday:
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/27/colorado-mountain-towns-opinion-carman/
In particular:
Colorado’s sweet, charming mountain towns are under siege from climate change,
hordes of outdoors enthusiasts, and eccentric real estate investors who think the
laws of the land and nature don’t apply to them.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
From: Ben kokenge
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: planning@estes.org; jwoeber@estes.org; jgarner@estes.org; swebermeier@estes.org;
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org; cyounglund@estes.org; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents rather
sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that whatever tourism
dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the loss of the current caliber of
tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the “discount” community with homes stacked
on top of one another? Would this also not invite more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have paved
everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only winners will be
the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the community.
Page 476
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who thinks this is a
good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will actually
read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 477
From: Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com>
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:24:19 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "\"mcenac@estes.org\"" <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org"" < \
mcenac@estes.org\ <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>;
"\"bmacalpine@estes.org\"" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org"" < \
bmacalpine@estes.org\ <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "\"wkoenig@estes.org\"" <wkoenig@estes.org>," <
\ wkoenig@estes.org\ <wkoenig@estes.org>, >; "\" <\>; "tmachalek@estes.org\""
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to share an article published yesterday:
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/27/colorado-mountain-towns-opinion-carman/
In particular:
Colorado’s sweet, charming mountain towns are under siege from climate change,
hordes of outdoors enthusiasts, and eccentric real estate investors who think the
laws of the land and nature don’t apply to them.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
From: Ben kokenge
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: planning@estes.org; jwoeber@estes.org; jgarner@estes.org; swebermeier@estes.org;
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org; cyounglund@estes.org; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents rather
sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that whatever tourism
dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the loss of the current caliber of
tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the “discount” community with homes stacked
on top of one another? Would this also not invite more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have paved
everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only winners will be
the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the community.
Page 478
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who thinks this is a
good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will actually
read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 479
From: Ben kokenge <ben@kokenge.com>
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:24:19 +0000
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>; "jwoeber@estes.org"
<jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>; "swebermeier@estes.org"
<swebermeier@estes.org>; "\"mcenac@estes.org\"" <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org"" < \
mcenac@estes.org\ <mcenac@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>;
"\"bmacalpine@estes.org\"" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org"" < \
bmacalpine@estes.org\ <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>; "\"wkoenig@estes.org\"" <wkoenig@estes.org>," <
\ wkoenig@estes.org\ <wkoenig@estes.org>, >; "\" <\>; "tmachalek@estes.org\""
<tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to share an article published yesterday:
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/27/colorado-mountain-towns-opinion-carman/
In particular:
Colorado’s sweet, charming mountain towns are under siege from climate change,
hordes of outdoors enthusiasts, and eccentric real estate investors who think the
laws of the land and nature don’t apply to them.
Thank you for your time,
Ben Kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
From: Ben kokenge
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: planning@estes.org; jwoeber@estes.org; jgarner@estes.org; swebermeier@estes.org;
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org; cyounglund@estes.org; "wkoenig@estes.org"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>
Subject: Concerning the Rezoning 685 Peak View
Hello, I would like to weigh in on my thoughts:
Does Estes Park wish to retain its charm and appeal to tourists, or would the current residents rather
sacrifice that in exchange for significantly more traffic/congestion? I believe that whatever tourism
dollars we would gain from the additional residences would be offset by the loss of the current caliber of
tourists and their dollars spent. Do we want to become the “discount” community with homes stacked
on top of one another? Would this also not invite more crime?
It’s a slippery slope – one lot at a time gets converted each time until, ultimately, we have paved
everything in hopes of a few extra dollars, only to have it backfire over time. The only winners will be
the home developers making short-term profits at the expense of the community.
Page 480
I can’t help but think ALL our property values would be affected as this continues. Who thinks this is a
good idea except for developers making profits?
These are my thoughts and concerns – please make the right decision. I wonder if anyone will actually
read this?
Ben kokenge
558 Darcy Drive
Page 481
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:16:29 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
Thanks again for the rapid reply.
A family medical situation is pulling me out of Estes and I am not sure which meetings I will be
able to attend. My concerns go way beyond the events of the Planning Commission meeting that
was held last week.
I have to wait and see what will happen with my travel requirements coming up in the short term
and the timing of the PC and Town Board meetings.
laura
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:08 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning, Laura.
I have no additional information to give you. I have copied the chair in the letter I sent you.
He is copied now for this letter. By attending the next meeting you will have the floor and can
express your concerns, if you choose to do so.
I will be home from the conference and have family from Croatia arriving. I am will not be
back at the office. However, please meet with Matt Comstock. He chaired the meeting and
perhaps an apology from Matt will allow you to move forward and continue to participate in
the Planning Commission meetings.
Have a good day.
Respectfully,
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 26, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I thank you for the courtesy of your rapid reply!
Although I agree absolutely with some of Mr. Kramer's statements and positions,
I still have major issues with the way the situation was handled. It seemed like a
Page 482
perfect Catch-22 situation, and I am left to wonder why it was not handled
differently. I am left wondering about motivations or intentions.
(and some other issues)
I have just filled out the form to request a meeting with you. I checked the option
for an in person meeting on a Thursday morning, but at the end the
acknowledgement said thanks for requesting a virtual meeting.
There is every chance that I checked the wrong box, but I do not think that I did.
Thanks again for the rapid reply.
Laura
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:59 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good evening Laura,
I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at the Planning
Commission Meeting. I want to thank you again for bringing this to the table at
the trustee outreach meeting last Thursday at Town Hall.
The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the withdrawal
of the application. The withdrawal was acknowledged and approved by the
Board without asking for public comment after the item was read by the Chair.
. The moment Chair Comstock asked for the acknowledgment and there was
no objection from Planning Commission members, the item was technically
officially removed from the agenda and any discussion. That removal formally
activated the new application that had been submitted to replace the application
that was removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the
replacement applications' existence. This is why he counseled not to allow
comment once the item was verified as removed from further discussion and
action by the Planning Commission.
There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the meeting. you
attended. No further public comment could be taken for the item that had been
removed by the Board. Your comments, if made after the acknowledgement of
the 685 application removal would have fallen into the category of "Ex Parte
Communication".
I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee MacAlpine and
confirmed the information about the sequence of events from her.
Page 483
I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I have chaired.
I certainly learned from looking into this. In your situation, I too would have
felt very upset.
Please consider attending the next Planning Commission Meeting. You may
speak at the beginning of the meeting as a non-agenda item comment if
685 Peakview is not printed on the agenda. If there is an agenda item regarding
685 Peak view on the meeting agenda, you will be allowed to speak.when
public comment is taken in the hearing.
It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is
adequate. Importantly, I hope you will return to make your important
comments. As always you may email them to the Planning Commission Board
directly.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 484
From: Matt Comstock <mcomstock@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 12:52:15 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Cc: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
Laura
Sorry that you perceived the events in the meeting as some form of
slight against you personally. As Mayor Koenig has clearly articulated
- this was not the case. The issue was the application for 685 peak
view had been withdrawn. The new application the developer had filed
was not on the agenda and therefore, per direct input from Town
Attorney Kraemer, taking comments on a future item was not advised
(which i took to mean not allowed) as it would fall under ex parte
communication which we must avoid.
we expect the revised peak view application to come before the
planning commission in the coming months. Potentially as early as
July. As shown in every previous meeting of the Planning Commission,
we are very open and very excited to hear from Estes Park citizens on
any matter that is before us. I can point to the 90 minutes of
comments we heard in the May meeting as proof of my statement above.
And we would love to hear from you when the time is right. Given the
circumstances that Mayor Koenig outlined to you which i have
reiterated in this note, the June meeting was not the time to take
comments regarding the 685 Peak View project.
many thanks
matt
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:08 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
>
> Good morning, Laura.
> I have no additional information to give you. I have copied the chair in the letter I sent you.
> He is copied now for this letter. By attending the next meeting you will have the floor and can express your
concerns, if you choose to do so.
> I will be home from the conference and have family from Croatia arriving. I am will not be back at the office.
However, please meet with Matt Comstock. He chaired the meeting and perhaps an apology from Matt will allow
you to move forward and continue to participate in the Planning Commission meetings.
> Have a good day.
> Respectfully,
> Mayor Koenig
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 26, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Page 485
>
>
> I thank you for the courtesy of your rapid reply!
>
> Although I agree absolutely with some of Mr. Kramer's statements and positions, I still have major issues with the
way the situation was handled. It seemed like a perfect Catch-22 situation, and I am left to wonder why it was not
handled differently. I am left wondering about motivations or intentions.
>
> (and some other issues)
>
> I have just filled out the form to request a meeting with you. I checked the option for an in person meeting on a
Thursday morning, but at the end the acknowledgement said thanks for requesting a virtual meeting.
>
> There is every chance that I checked the wrong box, but I do not think that I did.
>
> Thanks again for the rapid reply.
>
>
> Laura
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:59 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
>>
>> Good evening Laura,
>> I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting. I want to
thank you again for bringing this to the table at the trustee outreach meeting last Thursday at Town Hall.
>>
>> The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the withdrawal of the application. The
withdrawal was acknowledged and approved by the Board without asking for public comment after the item was
read by the Chair. . The moment Chair Comstock asked for the acknowledgment and there was no objection from
Planning Commission members, the item was technically officially removed from the agenda and any
discussion. That removal formally activated the new application that had been submitted to replace the application
that was removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the replacement applications' existence. This is
why he counseled not to allow comment once the item was verified as removed from further discussion and action
by the Planning Commission.
>>
>> There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the meeting. you attended. No further public
comment could be taken for the item that had been removed by the Board. Your comments, if made after the
acknowledgement of the 685 application removal would have fallen into the category of "Ex Parte Communication".
>>
>> I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee MacAlpine and confirmed the information about
the sequence of events from her.
>>
>> I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I have chaired. I certainly learned from looking
into this. In your situation, I too would have felt very upset.
>>
>> Please consider attending the next Planning Commission Meeting. You may speak at the beginning of the
meeting as a non-agenda item comment if 685 Peakview is not printed on the agenda. If there is an agenda item
regarding 685 Peak view on the meeting agenda, you will be allowed to speak.when public comment is taken in the
hearing.
>>
>> It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is adequate. Importantly, I hope you will return
to make your important comments. As always you may email them to the Planning Commission Board directly.
>>
>> Sincerely,
Page 486
>> Mayor Koenig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wendy Koenig
>>
>> Mayor
>> Town of Estes Park
--
Matt Comstock
Planning Commissioner
Town of Estes Park
Page 487
From: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:49:18 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
I thank you for the courtesy of your rapid reply!
Although I agree absolutely with some of Mr. Kramer's statements and positions, I still have
major issues with the way the situation was handled. It seemed like a perfect Catch-22 situation,
and I am left to wonder why it was not handled differently. I am left wondering about
motivations or intentions.
(and some other issues)
I have just filled out the form to request a meeting with you. I checked the option for an in
person meeting on a Thursday morning, but at the end the acknowledgement said thanks for
requesting a virtual meeting.
There is every chance that I checked the wrong box, but I do not think that I did.
Thanks again for the rapid reply.
Laura
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:59 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good evening Laura,
I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at the Planning Commission
Meeting. I want to thank you again for bringing this to the table at the trustee outreach meeting
last Thursday at Town Hall.
The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the withdrawal of the
application. The withdrawal was acknowledged and approved by the Board without asking for
public comment after the item was read by the Chair. . The moment Chair Comstock asked
for the acknowledgment and there was no objection from Planning Commission members, the
item was technically officially removed from the agenda and any discussion. That
removal formally activated the new application that had been submitted to replace the
application that was removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the replacement
applications' existence. This is why he counseled not to allow comment once the item was
verified as removed from further discussion and action by the Planning Commission.
There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the meeting. you attended. No
further public comment could be taken for the item that had been removed by the Board. Your
Page 488
comments, if made after the acknowledgement of the 685 application removal would have
fallen into the category of "Ex Parte Communication".
I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee MacAlpine and confirmed the
information about the sequence of events from her.
I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I have chaired. I certainly
learned from looking into this. In your situation, I too would have felt very upset.
Please consider attending the next Planning Commission Meeting. You may speak at the
beginning of the meeting as a non-agenda item comment if 685 Peakview is not printed on the
agenda. If there is an agenda item regarding 685 Peak view on the meeting agenda, you will
be allowed to speak.when public comment is taken in the hearing.
It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is adequate. Importantly, I
hope you will return to make your important comments. As always you may email them to the
Planning Commission Board directly.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 489
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:08:08 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Cc: "mcomstock@estes.org" <mcomstock@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
Good morning, Laura.
I have no additional information to give you. I have copied the chair in the letter I sent you.
He is copied now for this letter. By attending the next meeting you will have the floor and can
express your concerns, if you choose to do so.
I will be home from the conference and have family from Croatia arriving. I am will not be back
at the office. However, please meet with Matt Comstock. He chaired the meeting and perhaps an
apology from Matt will allow you to move forward and continue to participate in the Planning
Commission meetings.
Have a good day.
Respectfully,
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 26, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I thank you for the courtesy of your rapid reply!
Although I agree absolutely with some of Mr. Kramer's statements and positions, I
still have major issues with the way the situation was handled. It seemed like a
perfect Catch-22 situation, and I am left to wonder why it was not handled
differently. I am left wondering about motivations or intentions.
(and some other issues)
I have just filled out the form to request a meeting with you. I checked the option
for an in person meeting on a Thursday morning, but at the end the
acknowledgement said thanks for requesting a virtual meeting.
There is every chance that I checked the wrong box, but I do not think that I did.
Thanks again for the rapid reply.
Page 490
Laura
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:59 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good evening Laura,
I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at the Planning
Commission Meeting. I want to thank you again for bringing this to the table at
the trustee outreach meeting last Thursday at Town Hall.
The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the withdrawal of
the application. The withdrawal was acknowledged and approved by the Board
without asking for public comment after the item was read by the Chair. . The
moment Chair Comstock asked for the acknowledgment and there was no
objection from Planning Commission members, the item was technically
officially removed from the agenda and any discussion. That removal formally
activated the new application that had been submitted to replace the application
that was removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the replacement
applications' existence. This is why he counseled not to allow comment once the
item was verified as removed from further discussion and action by the Planning
Commission.
There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the meeting. you
attended. No further public comment could be taken for the item that had been
removed by the Board. Your comments, if made after the acknowledgement of
the 685 application removal would have fallen into the category of "Ex Parte
Communication".
I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee MacAlpine and
confirmed the information about the sequence of events from her.
I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I have chaired. I
certainly learned from looking into this. In your situation, I too would have felt
very upset.
Please consider attending the next Planning Commission Meeting. You may
speak at the beginning of the meeting as a non-agenda item comment if
685 Peakview is not printed on the agenda. If there is an agenda item regarding
685 Peak view on the meeting agenda, you will be allowed to speak.when public
comment is taken in the hearing.
It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is
adequate. Importantly, I hope you will return to make your important
comments. As always you may email them to the Planning Commission Board
directly.
Page 491
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 492
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:19:49 -0600
To: "Laura Rustin" <laurarustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Denied opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission Meeting
I hope all goes well with the family medical situation.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 26, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks again for the rapid reply.
A family medical situation is pulling me out of Estes and I am not sure which
meetings I will be able to attend. My concerns go way beyond the events of the
Planning Commission meeting that was held last week.
I have to wait and see what will happen with my travel requirements coming up in
the short term and the timing of the PC and Town Board meetings.
laura
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:08 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning, Laura.
I have no additional information to give you. I have copied the chair in the letter I
sent you.
He is copied now for this letter. By attending the next meeting you will have the
floor and can express your concerns, if you choose to do so.
I will be home from the conference and have family from Croatia arriving. I am
will not be back at the office. However, please meet with Matt Comstock. He
chaired the meeting and perhaps an apology from Matt will allow you to move
forward and continue to participate in the Planning Commission meetings.
Have a good day.
Respectfully,
Mayor Koenig
Page 493
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 26, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Laura Rustin
<laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
I thank you for the courtesy of your rapid reply!
Although I agree absolutely with some of Mr. Kramer's statements
and positions, I still have major issues with the way the situation was
handled. It seemed like a perfect Catch-22 situation, and I am left to
wonder why it was not handled differently. I am left wondering
about motivations or intentions.
(and some other issues)
I have just filled out the form to request a meeting with you. I
checked the option for an in person meeting on a Thursday morning,
but at the end the acknowledgement said thanks for requesting a
virtual meeting.
There is every chance that I checked the wrong box, but I do not
think that I did.
Thanks again for the rapid reply.
Laura
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:59 PM Wendy Koenig
<wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good evening Laura,
I visited with Dan Kramer regarding the denial for you to speak at
the Planning Commission Meeting. I want to thank you again for
bringing this to the table at the trustee outreach meeting last
Thursday at Town Hall.
The item you wanted to speak to was on the agenda, to approve the
withdrawal of the application. The withdrawal was acknowledged
and approved by the Board without asking for public comment
after the item was read by the Chair. . The moment Chair
Comstock asked for the acknowledgment and there was no
objection from Planning Commission members, the item was
Page 494
technically officially removed from the agenda and any
discussion. That removal formally activated the new application
that had been submitted to replace the application that was
removed.Town Attorney Dan Kramer had knowledge of the
replacement applications' existence. This is why he counseled not
to allow comment once the item was verified as removed from
further discussion and action by the Planning Commission.
There was not a hearing scheduled for the new application at the
meeting. you attended. No further public comment could be taken
for the item that had been removed by the Board. Your comments,
if made after the acknowledgement of the 685 application removal
would have fallen into the category of "Ex Parte
Communication".
I have not talked to Chair Comstock. I did speak with Trustee
MacAlpine and confirmed the information about the sequence of
events from her.
I have never seen this unusual circumstance during the meetings I
have chaired. I certainly learned from looking into this. In your
situation, I too would have felt very upset.
Please consider attending the next Planning Commission
Meeting. You may speak at the beginning of the meeting as a non-
agenda item comment if 685 Peakview is not printed on the
agenda. If there is an agenda item regarding 685 Peak view on the
meeting agenda, you will be allowed to speak.when public
comment is taken in the hearing.
It has been difficult to explain this series of events. I hope this is
adequate. Importantly, I hope you will return to make your
important comments. As always you may email them to the
Planning Commission Board directly.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
--
Page 495
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 496
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:11:19 -0600
To: "T&J White" <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Estes Park neighborhood zones
Thank you for expressing your concerns.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 5:09 PM T&J White <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com> wrote:
To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners
We are writing to urge you to DENY any changes to neighborhood zone regulations.
The beauty of Estes Park is open space. People escape the heat of the city and enjoy walking in
nature, cool temperatures, and space to just breathe. If you start to allow or encourage
development, Estes could become a Boulder, Denver or Loveland and lose its uniqueness. More
traffic. More pollution. More heat. Don’t let greedy developers take away the beauty and peace of
Estes Park.
Concrete is a known pollutant and adds heat to the surrounding neighborhood.
https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concrete-the-environmental-impact Wood
housing is a fire hazard. More cars will pollute our fresh air. When we have a world that is burning
up, why would you EVER consider selling out the gem of Estes Park to a developer who will take his
money and run? https://www.reuters.com/world/world-registers-hottest-day-ever-recorded-july-3-
2023-07-04/
Estes does not need more construction of houses that are seldom lived in. What Estes needs is open
space with a vibrant hotel business and planned neighborhoods for seasonal workers. Please, as
Trustee’s of the city, don’t sell out to developers. It’s actually appalling to us that you would
even consider the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning, given its opposition. Please, do your job and
protect Estes from over development and rezoning requests.
With respect –
Joan & Tim White
Estes Park, CO
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 497
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:19:10 -0600
To: "Jackie Adams" <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again.
Your email has been read by me. Mayor
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com> wrote:
After his May 26th rezoning application of 685 Peakview review was "continued" by the
Planning Commision,
Mr.Theis has spun that wheel again with a new Rezoning Application.
Since December, Frank Theis has submitted 6 different proposals at the APO
neighborhood meetings.
None of these proposals have shown a Change of Condition, which Frank himself admitted at
the last APO neighborhood meeting.
Now he has submitted a new Application of only four 1/2 acre lots on a deadend street.
Interesting that only four lots were proposed and very interesting it would not be in conflict
with future rezoning applications of the surrounding areas.
Pretty much a slam dunk for Frank.
Also interesting, Franks' next APO required neighborhood meeting is on July 3rd.
Really shows his concerns to be upfront and honest with the Town and Adjacent Property
Owners.
Just another spin of the Wheel of Fortune and profit, which was Mr. Theis' game plan from the
beginning of the first application.
His main intent for rezoning back in December was to get 39 lots approved and sell the lots.
No workforce or attainable housing, no change of condition, no HOA or construction plans.
Just land for sale at quite the profit. Does anyone really think Frank has abandoned this profit
pursuit??
The Planning Commission and the Trustees would be handing him a change of condition on a
silver platter.
Approval of this four lot rezoning will pave the way for Frank Theis to apply for a future
rezoning of the rest of 685 Peakview back to the 5000 sq ft lots.
I hope the Planning Commission and the Trustees sees through these spinning Wheel of
Fortune attempts and listens to the 1200+ petition signers against any rezoning of 685
Peakview.
Thank you
Jackie Adams (APO)
565 A Devon Drive
Page 498
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 499
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:03:56 -0600
To: "baderl@comcast.net" <baderl@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: In opposition to the rezoning request for 685 Peak View Dr
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:43 AM <baderl@comcast.net> wrote:
To whom it may concern,
Please consider a few facts before making your recommendations for the rezoning and
subdivision of 685 Peak view drive.
1. Global warming, overpopulation, continuing degradation of the water we drink and the air
we breathe.
2. The vast majority of guests and residents of Estes Park do not want to lose this towns
unique qualities and become like other overcrowded, not advised to breath the air in, town and
city.
3. 685 Peak View Dr was a poor site selection for a rezoning request due to lack of access
with zero possibility for the development of arterial streets. One way in, one way out!
4. Any comparison of this proposal to surrounding neighborhoods is both disingenuous and
an insult to the people that live here.
This only highlights a few of the contentions that has ignited the growing mass opposition to
the rezoning of 685 Peak View Dr.
Thank you,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 500
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:24:45 -0600
To: "Carol Peterson" <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
Carol,
I have read your email and thank you for your input. As you can understand, I should not engage
in conversation about the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 3:59 PM Carol Peterson <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net> wrote:
Carol Peterson
570 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department
Estes Park Planning Commission
I strongly recommend disapproval of Frank Theis request for rezoning 1.75 acres of
685 Peak View from E-1 to E. Mr. Theis's most recent plan has three 1/2 half acre
lots with the remaining 5.87 acres containing an existing home.
Based on his previous requests for rezoning 685 Peak View, I feel it is unlikely that
this will be his last request for rezoning this property. I strongly object to high
density zoning on this property that is adjacent to my own property at 570 Devon
and in my community of estate lots. I feel that this request for rezoning is step one
of a plan to achieve his original goal and plan for a high density build.
Mr. Frank Theis’s current plan should be denied by the planning commission. It is
a blatant attempt to by-pass zoning restrictions and guidelines. Would the planning
commission of New York City approve a plan for an apartment complex of three
stories on plans submitted for just the first floor? This is Mr. Theis’s plan for the
first floor - let us see the whole plan before marching down the rezoning road of no
return.
I strongly recommend disapproval of rezoning 1.75 acres of 685 Peak View from E-
1 to E.
Very respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Peterson CAPT, USN, Retired
Page 501
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 502
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 17:00:34 -0600
To: "Carol Peterson" <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
I have read your comments Carol. Thank you
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2023, at 3:59 PM, Carol Peterson <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Carol Peterson
570 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department
Estes Park Planning Commission
I strongly recommend disapproval of Frank Theis request for rezoning
1.75 acres of 685 Peak View from E-1 to E. Mr. Theis's most recent plan
has three 1/2 half acre lots with the remaining 5.87 acres containing an
existing home.
Based on his previous requests for rezoning 685 Peak View, I feel it is
unlikely that this will be his last request for rezoning this property. I
strongly object to high density zoning on this property that is adjacent to
my own property at 570 Devon and in my community of estate lots. I feel
that this request for rezoning is step one of a plan to achieve his original
goal and plan for a high density build.
Mr. Frank Theis’s current plan should be denied by the planning
commission. It is a blatant attempt to by-pass zoning restrictions and
guidelines. Would the planning commission of New York City approve a
plan for an apartment complex of three stories on plans submitted for just
the first floor? This is Mr. Theis’s plan for the first floor - let us see the
whole plan before marching down the rezoning road of no return.
Page 503
I strongly recommend disapproval of rezoning 1.75 acres of 685 Peak
View from E-1 to E.
Very respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Peterson CAPT, USN, Retired
Page 504
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:27:45 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
Page 505
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:27:45 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
Page 506
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:27:45 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
Page 507
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:27:45 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
Page 508
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:27:45 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
Page 509
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:27:45 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
Page 510
From: Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:27:45 +0000
To: "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "Karin Swanlund"
<kswanlund@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org"
<pmartchink@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Attachments: 685.pdf
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
Page 511
June 30th 2023
Dear Mayor Koenig, Trustees and Community Development,
I have now received the 6th letter in the mail for a completely different development proposal on 685
Peak View and as I write this there’s a new plan. I am not attending a meeting on July 3rd the eve before a
Federal Holiday because I have other commitments, but please note public response is high, very high. I
oppose ANY spot zoning giving privilege to one landowner while giving detriment to over 93% + APOs
opposing and 1300+ signatures opposing, possibly over 1400 as I write this.
Was the applicant notified of a conflict of interest and advised to recuse self from the comprehensive
planning committee by any town staff when the original application was submitted 11/3/22? The
bylaws and CO law given to members serving does not distinguish voting from non as I read, this is an
ethics violation in the least. The developer sat in the room and provided influence while under contract,
closing on this private entity and then applying for 8 times current zoning during the same time so I raise
the question of spot zoning once again giving privilege to one property owner and detriment to others.
I believe 13 homes border the property in question and 10 of those are zoned E1. Would this rezoning
result in consistent regulations for the other E1 surrounding property owners if submitting the same
zoning request in all fairness (note over 93% of them oppose and the other 7% have not voiced support
appearing neutral).
Developer’s Standards for Review
As per the Estes Park Development Code section 3.3.D, the following are required for a
rezoning:
1) The rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.
The increased need for housing combined with the lack of available land for such
development, has created a significant change in the land use needs compared to
when the property was originally zoned.
I would like to know the “change in condition in the areas affected” not via a survey or study that is
reaching the same conclusions for all towns across Colorado. Please elaborate on how one additional
house gives one landowner a “change in condition in the areas affected”.
2) The concept plan for the subdivision of the property is compatible and consistent
with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In the Comprehensive Plan,
sections H2.D, H2.E, H2.I, and H2.J of the Implementation Plan recommend actions
by the Town to encourage higher-density housing development.
H 2.D: Allow duplex, triplex, cottage court, dorm
Page 512
and other “missing middle” housing types. Is this one additional house that will list for over 650K the
“missing middle” this is unclear and ambiguous in a court of law. As noted in previous letters there is a
complete disregard for other parts of the comprehensive plan specifically related to our environment and
surrounding community.
H 2.E: Explore density increases tied to the creation of deed-restricted housing (e.g. small
lot subdivision, reduced lot coverage, additional height) The word Explore is used not “give”. Please
reference all comments from other letters of location to Prospect Mtn, The Thumb (Wildlife), and 75% of
E1 surrounding in exploring rezoning in this location.
H 2.J: Identify and remove regulations that create unintended barriers to housing development.
• Is our Wildlife the barrier?
• Are the over 1300 signatures opposing or the over 93% of APO taxpayers the barrier?
• Are all other parts of the Comprehensive plan that were completely ignored on application #5
presentation the barrier which was addressed in writing by numerous citizens.
Application #5 did go to the Planning Commission and when Commissioners asked about R1 zoning, and
“attainable housing” Director Garner responded that this was a problem discovered just that day and
would be “worked out ” by the time it got to town board. The application has since been withdrawn, a
Senior Planner well established in their career with over 5 years of experience with the town has
submitted a two-line letter of resignation with 2 weeks’ notice, and #6 application (#7/8 as I write this)
now submitted to rezone to E on only 2+ acres is before you. Is this the partial submittal so everything
can get “worked out” before it gets to town board? It’s insulting at this point. When the PC asked for
clarification of spot zoning the response was if it met criteria in their opinion. The “opinion” of the PC
was the reason for the denial of their recommendation for The Prospector Apartments by the Town
Board.
I ask you to deny this application for:
1. NO change in condition in the areas affected and an opinion is not a basis.
2. Inconsistency with Comp Plan, one additional home with a road is not consistent with the comp
plan as multiple sections are ignored as outlined in my and many others previous letters. A Yes
on this opens the doors to call any plot of land “change in condition.”
3. Privilege is not given to 1 landowner at detriment to others which would lead to spot zoning.
Thank You
Stephanie Ahrndt-Pawson
Meeker Drive
Page 513
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:00:41 -0600
To: "Stephanie a" <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank you Stephanie, I have read your information. Mayor Wendy
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:27 AM Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com> wrote:
I apologize please see attached there was an attachment to original. Thank You
From: Stephanie a
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>; Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org>;
khazelton@estes.org <khazelton@estes.org>; pmartchink@estes.org <pmartchink@estes.org>;
mcenac@estes.org <mcenac@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>;
franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>; cyounglund@estes.org
<cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview
Thank You.
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 514
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:23:03 -0600
To: "Christy Jacobs" <cj@ap-tm.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View-Ltr July18
Christy,
I have read your email and thank you for your input. As you can understand, I should not engage
in conversation about the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 8:19 AM Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com> wrote:
Yes, another Opposition Ltr of the Rezoning of 685 P.V. -July 18 2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 515
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:05:14 -0600
To: "Christy Jacobs" <cj@ap-tm.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition of Rezoning of 685 Peak View-2023-08-13
As you know, I can’t engage in a conversation about this project but I have your email and thank
you for your input!
Marie
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:54 AM Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com> wrote:
Attached is my Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View Ltr- Dated 08-13-2023
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 516
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:09:56 -0600
To: "Jackie Adams" <jsa.dna@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning?????
Thank you for your comments Jackie.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 27, 2023, at 4:35 PM, Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> As I sat down today to compose another opposition letter to the 685 Peak View Rezoning or is it the Coyote Ridge
Rezoning???
> And wow, another plan popped onto my screen from Frank Theis. I have lost count, but I am confident this will
not be the last one.
>
> In December 2022 the first presented plan was for 39 homes. (1 acre lots to 5000 sq ft lots)
> From there the number of homes and lot sizes have been multiple from 39, 29, 34, 27, 26, 4 and now 3.
> Wow, how did a simple rezoning request turn into this three-ring circus?
> Is Frank Theis the only ringleader to this ever-changing rezoning requests or are other players in the background.
>
> I have lost confidence in the planning commission and staff which seems to be a bit chaotic since Jeff Woeber's
resignation last Friday.
> I am also astonished with the City Attorney and his recent OPINIONS. And they are only OPINIONS until a
lawsuit or legal actions occur.
> I definitely do not concur with his OPINIONS on Spot rezoning, change of conditions or ability of residents to
speak at meetings.
> I suggest the Trustees look into these "Opinions" since the final vote resides with all of you.
>
> I am very concerned with non-residents sitting on boards of power that drive the future of this town.
> Why are there no Residency requirements for the Planning Staff ?
> Even the current job posting for Senior Planner (with a nicely salaried position of $82K-$115K) has no residency
requirement.
> It is very puzzling to me???
>
> In the end NO REZONING period!! of whatever we are calling the property at 685 Peak View these days.
>
> WHY:
> No change of condition.
> Spot rezoning is illegal in Colorado.
> Partial rezoning (this was allowed on Fish Hatchery, but it does not mean it was legal just ALLOWED).
>
> Jackie Adams
> Adjacent Property Owner
> 565 A Devon Drive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Page 517
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 10:00:44 -0600
To: "Daniel Scace" <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Opposition to any rezoning on 685 Peak View
Thank you for communicating your concerns Dan. Mayor
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2023, at 9:11 AM, Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Commissioners and Town Leaders,
I have previously outlined my opposition but need to
reiterate my concerns as Frank Theis continues to
modify plans in an attempt to push his agenda down the
slippery slope of change.
At the planning commission meeting when the can was
kicked down the road, I got the sense that the
commission was looking for ways to approve Frank's
request. I think the town attorney's defining of "spot
zoning" was incomplete if not completely inaccurate
and that issue needs a lot more scrutiny. Comments like
"the increased density doesn't look bad" on the map
indicate to me the desire to approve something, most
likely in an attempt to achieve some unwritten density
goal for the Town. Now Frank made additional changes
to his proposal to make his scheme look more like
"what the town wants". Let's not fall for that, stick to the
plan.
Page 518
I'm not opposed to developing the property as currently
zoned/planned. This has been a long standing plan, held
strictly to by all who have build in the area, and
expected to be reinforced by the governing bodies in the
future. There is no need to change a well developed plan
(reaffirmed in the recent Comprehensive Plan,
December 2022) and NO CHANGES IN
CONDITIONS that would warrant changes.
Changes as Frank proposes are not the solution to Estes
Park's perceived housing crisis. There are many ongoing
developments aimed directly at helping to ease some of
the housing issues associated with workforce and lower
cost dwellings. It is not economically feasible to
develop something at 685 Peak View that helps with
these issues. That's just one of the hard economic facts
of today. And, increasing density is not good for all
locations.
I still have concerns with the process outlined in our
guiding documents. Not considering impacts before
making changes just seems illogical. I know there are
checks and balances, and Frank has voluntarily done
some studies prior to approval, but once that cat is out
of the bag it ain't going back in, the damage will have
been done.
So please, reaffirm again the plan that you all recently
reaffirmed. Let's not let the desires on one individual,
wise in his approach but ultimately aimed at making
more money, mess with our beloved community.
Page 519
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 520
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:34:53 -0600
To: "Tom Kaszynski" <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
Good morning Tom. Thank you for sharing your ideas! Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 16, 2023, at 2:45 PM, Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure Frank Theis and anyone
involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns
it and the zoning just to name a few. When this property first came onto the market it was already listed as
“contingent”, and while later listed as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we
did. Frank knew it was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with that. Im not sure if you
remember during the public comments at one of the meetings, someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that
they were “devastated” to learn of Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have
sold the property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
>
> At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new house of 1230 sq ft on
Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K yet its listed on the market for $675 which
puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending”
only to go back onto the market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square foot people just
laughed.
>
> Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan along with different
verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this is what the “town wants”.
> Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan off the board and
rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and then stormed out. So let me
see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe
the feeling should be the other way around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
>
> It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The planning dept seems
to be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for an opportunity for some vacant land to come
up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even
live here….they have nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something there? Instead
someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask
them what those new business plans are for housing their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
>
> At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores downtown. Why
can’t the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not interview them one at a time and make a
spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not
everyone could afford a place that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington ? What about fish
hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building and building? I guess if it were me I
would be taking a hard look at all of the business and have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms
of the wages they are paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go saying that “ the trend is
this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done from outside people lining out what Estes needs
Page 521
to do. Don’t we have people that can do that? If not then maybe we should.
>
> So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why keep changing the
codes if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in town that Estes will be losing its
uniqueness one parcel at a time.
>
> Thanks for listening
>
> Tom Kaszynski
> 610 Devon Drive
> Estes Park
>
>
Page 522
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:25:10 -0600
To: "Tom Kaszynski" <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive
I have read your email and thank you for your input. As you can understand, I should not engage
in conversation about the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 2:45 PM Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hi
Everyone has heard the saying that “Its not what you know, but who you know”. Im sure
Frank Theis and anyone involved with developing etc has a pretty good idea of what property
will be coming up for sale in Estes, who owns it and the zoning just to name a few. When this
property first came onto the market it was already listed as “contingent”, and while later listed
as sold. Frank Theis bought this property from the McCords just as we did. Frank knew it
was zoned 1 home/acre. Those of us who live in this neighborhood always knew that the day
would come when another 6 homes would be built. Nobody had or still has a problem with
that. Im not sure if you remember during the public comments at one of the meetings,
someone who knew the McCords pretty well said that they were “devastated” to learn of
Franks plans. Everyone was. Most don’t think that the McCords would have sold the
property knowing that someone would come in and want the zoning changed.
At one of the first neighborhood meetings Frank was touting the fact that he built this new
house of 1230 sq ft on Saxton Court for $280.00/square feet which comes out to about $350K
yet its listed on the market for $675 which puts the cost around $550/square foot. He also
stated that he built it for a client and at one point it was “pending” only to go back onto the
market where it stands today. $675K is a whole bunch of money for a house of that size
wouldn’t you think. No wonder when he said in the meeting that he built it for $280/square
foot people just laughed.
Neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting he was coming up with a different plan
along with different verbiage….workforce,,,,affordable,,,,attainable….always saying that this
is what the “town wants”.
Franks last neighborhood meeting was pretty short with Frank eventually taking his latest plan
off the board and rolling it up and stating “ Im tired of trying to work with you people!!”, and
then stormed out. So let me see….Frank is tired of trying to work with us when in fact he
knew all along it was zoned one home/acre, so maybe the feeling should be the other way
around? Why not just build the 6 homes and be done with it?
It seems like the town govt isn’t in touch with the needs or wants of this neighborhood. The
planning dept seems to be a mess in the fact that instead of being proactive they just wait for
an opportunity for some vacant land to come up and then its “ HEY LETS CHANGE THE
ZONING” . There are people woking in various areas that don’t even live here….they have
nothing at stake other than to pad their resume or get a housing bonus. If the twin owls lodge
sat vacant for so long then why didn’t the planning dept seize the opportunity to do something
Page 523
there? Instead someone comes in and rebuilds for the tourists adding yet another “ We need
housing” battle cry. Why don’t we ask them what those new business plans are for housing
their employees instead of putting the burden on the town?
At the last town board meeting I had spoke about talking to some of the people in the stores
downtown. Why can’t the housing dept and planning dept take that approach? Why not
interview them one at a time and make a spreadsheet of their needs or the needs of their
employees? Not everyone wants to own a home and surely not everyone could afford a place
that costs 400K and up. What is the status of the 50 families that we keep hearing
about? How come the wildfire units are not sold? What about the 94 units on Lexington
? What about fish hatchery? What else is in the works? Do we really need to keep building
and building? I guess if it were me I would be taking a hard look at all of the business and
have a review before the start of every tourist season in terms of the wages they are
paying,,,how many employees,,,the input from employees in regards to what they can and
can’t afford. Make a spreadsheet that you can reference from year to year. Don’t just go
saying that “ the trend is this or that”. I don’t think there is a need to have any studies done
from outside people lining out what Estes needs to do. Don’t we have people that can do
that? If not then maybe we should.
So do you think Frank and those who are on his side are developers, or manipulators? Why
keep changing the codes if that wasn’t the case? I keep hearing over and over from others in
town that Estes will be losing its uniqueness one parcel at a time.
Thanks for listening
Tom Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 524
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:51:15 -0600
To: "Daniel Scace" <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
I did receive your email and read it. I cannot have a dialogue with you about this subject at
this time. There are certain topics that the town board may have to act “as a jury” for. When
these topics are brought to us for action, no one member can have any other information that any
other member doesn’t have. That includes private conversations. By the state law any other
information than what we are given as a whole is called ex parte communications. If a member
of the board has engaged in any ex parte communication then they should not vote on a matter
and recuse themselves.
If an email is sent to all board members we are not allowed to communicate with more than one
other board member at a time without it being an advertised public meeting so we can’t respond
back to “all”.
We encourage all communications about these matters to be sent to the clerk to be included in
our packet so that the community also can see the information in its entirety, this also allows the
other party to comment about any particular issues.
Thanks
Marie
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:47 PM Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Town of Estes Park Planners and Elected Officials,
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Mr. Theis’ proposal to put 39 houses at 685 Peak View got our
community’s attention, and the community formed a group to
study the situation and try to make our voices heard regarding
the direction we would like to see the Town take in this
specific matter and matters of this nature. Because of the
quasi-judicial nature of this type of issue we are banned from
having meaningful dialogue with both the recommending
body, the Planning Commission, and the Trustees, the decision
makers in these matters. Therefore, we have done research and
sought out expert legal opinions to better define our case
opposing this proposed rezoning.
Page 525
We believe it is up to us to persuade the Planning Commission
and the Trustees not to approve any changes to the current
zoning of 685 Peak View. We hope to present you meaningful
insight into what we the citizens desire, and what we feel is
right about preserving the long-standing zoning and what it
means to comply with our Development Code and Master
Plan. We will present facts about the process and opinion
about what governance should mean as we look at the future of
planning in the Estes Valley.
We recognize and respect the broad discretion that
Commissioners and Trustees have on these matters, as well as
the responsibility of governing. We believe that our Town is at
a crossroad where different paths forward have the potential to
create significantly different futures for both us as individuals
and as a small mountain town.
What do we want and why do we want it?
We want no changes in the current zoning of 685 Peak View.
Let’s proceed with development as currently allowed.
We want this because of our concern for over-development
and the potential negative impacts of increased density. We
believe that the long-established zoning is very appropriate in
this neighborhood and in line with the Town’s own recently
approved Master Plan.
Our Development Code outlines how we govern and manage
changes, and it also provides us with a checklist, or test if you
Page 526
will, to ensure that decisions are appropriate, or the “right”
decisions are being made. And by “right” we mean those that
are in line with our guiding documents, and unbiassed towards
any one individual or agenda. The hope is when the criteria in
these guiding documents are applied, they are applied
consistent with common thought and application to the specific
situation.
In order to appropriately approve a zoning change request,
three criteria must be met per Section 3.3, Section D, of the
Development Code.
“D. Standards for Review. All applications for text or Official
Zoning Map amendments shall be reviewed by the EVPC and
Board(s) for compliance with the relevant standards and
criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of
this Code.
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;
and
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.”
Let’s look at #1 now and the wording is important as it refers
to conditions in the areas affected;
Page 527
In most people’s minds, the affected area is the neighborhood
with a proposed change. That’s why our own process relies
heavily on input from adjacent property owners, not those
living on the other side of Town. For example, is downtown,
or the neighborhood in the ABCs near the hospital affected by
a zoning change on Peak View? Not likely. If we use the
argument that “the town needs more housing” (which seems to
be the basis of planning staff’s recommendation that there is a
change of conditions) applies to this application as a “change
in condition” then where in town does the argument not apply?
Clearly, the Town’s broad-scale needs are not the needs of
each street, subdivision, or vacant lot in the Estes Valley.
While we, again, acknowledge and respect your discretion on
this item, please consider who benefits from saying YES, there
are “changes in conditions” that warrant approval of the
request to change zoning. We live here and we do not see any
changes in conditions in the neighborhood. Frank Theis stated
at our first community meeting there are no changes in
conditions. If you review your own meeting discussions note
that Chair Matt Comstock stated something to the effect that if
we looked back at the town minutes from 20 years ago there
was talk of the need for more housing, so what’s changed? The
economics of property values is not a “change in conditions”,
it’s an economic reality and always has been. In fact, a change
in zoning would not be compatible with the current zoning and
the very real nature of the neighborhood.
Now let’s look at #2. The current zoning is for a 1-acre
minimum lot size. The request is for more dense housing. This
is clearly not “consistent with the (current) policies” but we
Page 528
could interpret it as being in line with the intent of our guiding
documents as they do imply that change is coming, and this
could be that opportunity. We do, however, challenge the
Planning Dept, or anyone else, to show us how this is
consistent with “existing growth and development patterns in
the Estes Valley”. In our view, people have bought land and
built homes respecting the existing requirements, not
immediately changing what is allowed in the neighborhood.
If you read them carefully, both our Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code tend to want to protect the Town and
citizens from things that could be “materially detrimental to
the public welfare, injurious to other property in the
neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives
of this code.” (Section 3.9) Further, we believe that approval of
this request would create a “change in conditions” rather than
be the result of some undefined changes in conditions in the
affected neighborhood.
While the current application is a limited approach to rezoning
the 685 Peak View parcel, please look at the intent letters
submitted by the developer in his previous rezoning requests.
Has Mr. Theis’ intent changed? It’s more likely that this is an
interim strategy to ultimately achieve his original goal of
rezoning all 7.62 acres and increasing the housing density to a
level inconsistent with the current allowed density.
We recognize that there is a huge demand for housing in the
Valley. It fluctuates based on the economic laws of supply and
demand, but change, meaning more development, is inevitable.
We must carefully consider where it goes and how it goes into
Page 529
our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here.
Remember, there are many areas that are loved to death!
We are confident that your decisions will be in compliance
with the Code and the Plan, both of which advise us to
cautiously weigh the pros and cons of each development
proposal. Let’s proceed with caution. Let’s not change the
current zoning on 685 Peak View.
Frank Theis has held community meetings, but the current plan
was not presented at any meeting, which we believe is required
by the Code. Are we okay going forward without a
presentation on this proposal by the developer? The
Development Code, Section 3.2, B.1.c.(4) states as follows;
(4) Conduct of Meetings. At the neighborhood and community
meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal
and application, inform attendees of the character and nature
of the process for review, and respond to comments and
questions neighbors may have about the application and
propose ways to resolve conflicts.
We believe that this statement requires the applicant to explain
the specific proposal that is to be presented to the Planning
Commission and Town Board. That did not happen in this case
but another meeting to present the revised application was
deemed not required by the Community Development
Director. Hence there was no opportunity for neighbors to get
information about the proposal and no opportunity for the
developer to “respond to comments and questions neighbors
may have about the application and propose ways to resolve
conflicts”. This decision to waive requirements spelled out in
Page 530
the Development Code, is deceptive, and undermines the
process of getting to the best, most appropriate decision on this
rezoning application. There are other examples of non-
adherence to the Town’s own process, which raises red flags
about the real desire of Town officials to adhere to the
established process, and perhaps even exhibits favoritism
towards the developer. Without dialogue on the issue, what are
we supposed to believe? Do we just have to accept the “my
way or the highway” approach?
During each meeting held by Mr. Theis there was little or no
support for a zoning change to allow increased density but
there was robust opposition. There is also a large volume of
input to the Town opposing any changes to the zoning of 685
Peak View, with many issues pointed out that should, in our
opinion, lead to a decision to maintain the current zoning. This
opposition has not always been welcomed. We sense our
involvement in the issue angers Town staff, and they look
upon us as “NIMBYs”. Trust me, we are not, we are concerned
about our Town’s future and want to be heard. We want an
environment where citizens are not criticized or chastised
when they engage in town affairs. Our goal is to make ours and
our Town's future as bright as possible, not just be critics or
disruptors. We, as a small mountain town, should draw the line
somewhere before we overdevelop as others have done. Let’s
start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-
standing 1-acre lot plan and not make any changes. It’s in line
with our guiding documents, seems a better fit for our goals,
and, after all, we live here, love it here, and don't want it loved
to death.
Page 531
Dan and Tami Scace, 606 Longs Drive, Estes Park
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 532
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 12:40:40 -0600
To: "Tamara Scace" <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View
Thank you for your email, Tamara.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:49 AM Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
To the Planning Commission and Trustees,
I am opposed to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. It has been
quite a ride with the developer, Frank Theis, changing his plans
every time there has been a neighborhood meeting.
I am sure you have seen and read over 200 letters that have
arrived since the attempt to rezone was started. Our opinions
have not changed, even with the attempts to change ideas to
sneak in rezoning for the entire lot. There has been no change
of conditions.
The planning office is obviously pushing for higher density as a
knee jerk attempt to provide affordable or work force housing,
but this particular development would never be affordable or
available for long term rentals. We are not Boulder or
Broomfield.
I very much object to Theis’s idea of selling lots and then
abandoning the buyers to find their own builders. These will
probably be bought as second homes with a view. A gorgeous
view!!
Selling the beauty of Estes Park for financial gain is horrifying.
Sincerely,
Tami Scace
606 Longs Drive, Estes Park, CO
Page 533
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 534
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:02 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Cc: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
You are very welcome.
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 535
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:02 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Cc: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
You are very welcome.
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 536
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:02 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Cc: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
You are very welcome.
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 537
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:05:55 -0600
To: "Christy Jacobs" <cj@ap-tm.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
Thank you for sending your comments. I have read them.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 8:52 AM Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com> wrote:
Attached is a .pdf of my letter of Opposition of the Rezoning of 685 Peak View.
Last night I tried to send an email out as just plain text and it showed it did not go through, so
this is my 2nd attempt with and attached document. Apology in advance if you have a
received a previous one.
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr. - Estes Park
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 538
From: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:54:44 -0600
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Thank you for your response.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:54 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Jan, I read your letter. Mayor
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 539
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:02 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Cc: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
You are very welcome.
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 540
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 08:51:34 -0600
To: "Susan Kaszynski" <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Thank you for emailing your comments. I have read them Susan.
Mayor Koenig
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 8:46 AM Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com> wrote:
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre
each. I believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is
zoned E so he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you
can see where this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a
developer, and his main focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he
says “the town”, he is referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not
aligned with the constituents or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning
department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town
trustees and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view
this as an opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing
home/land owners, who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the
devaluation of their property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet
turned into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for
preserving such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently
approved comp plan, to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 541
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:02 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Cc: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
You are very welcome.
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 542
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:02 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Cc: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
You are very welcome.
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 543
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:28:10 -0600
To: "Susan Kaszynski" <sbr52@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
I did receive your email and read it. I cannot have a dialogue with you about this subject at
this time. There are certain topics that the town board may have to act “as a jury” for. When
these topics are brought to us for action, no one member can have any other information that any
other member doesn’t have. That includes private conversations. By the state law any other
information than what we are given as a whole is called ex parte communications. If a member
of the board has engaged in any ex parte communication then they should not vote on a matter
and recuse themselves.
If an email is sent to all board members we are not allowed to communicate with more than one
other board member at a time without it being an advertised public meeting so we can’t respond
back to “all”.
We encourage all communications about these matters to be sent to the clerk to be included in
our packet so that the community also can see the information in its entirety, this also allows the
other party to comment about any particular issues.
Thanks
Marie On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 8:46 AM Susan Kaszynski <sbr52@yahoo.com> wrote:
Planning Commission and Board Trustees,
I am strongly opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive!! Frank Theis has not been forthright with the proposals he has
presented. There have been so many plans he has presented, that I have lost count. He appears to be trying anything he can come up
with to get rezoning approved. His latest plan is for rezoning a portion of the property to E to accommodate 3 homes at 1/2 acre
each. I believe this is just a ploy to be able to come back at a later date and say the rest of the property is adjacent to property that is
zoned E so he should be able to rezone the remaining 5 acres. If you overlay his new submission over his withdrawn submission, you
can see where this is going. If Frank’s only intent was to put in 3 lots then why doesn’t he do 1 lot per acre as zoned? Frank is a
developer, and his main focus is to maximize his investment. Frank said the town wants this, I now realize what he means when he
says “the town”, he is referring to the planning department. The planning department seems to have their own agenda, that is not
aligned with the constituents or the comp plan. From the outside it appears there is a toxic atmosphere within the planning
department that starts at the top.
The bottom line, more so than ever, this is an example of spot zoning. There has been no change in conditions!! It is destroying an
existing neighborhood for the profit of one person. It also does not follow the recently approved comp plan. Where do the town
trustees and planning commissioners stand on protecting the right of existing land/home owners? I understand that the town may view
this as an opportunity to add density and increase the tax base, but at what cost? This would be totally undermining existing
home/land owners, who have abided by the zoning laws and the comp plan and developed accordingly. Is there no regard for the
devaluation of their property?
Visitors come to Estes Park because of Rocky Mountain National Park and the beauty and quality of the town. Estes has not yet
turned into a Vail or Breckenridge with high rise condos stacked on top of each other. I commend the board and commissioners for
preserving such a desirable atmosphere. I do hope that you will continue to do so, and not disregard the established, recently
approved comp plan, to accommodate a developer who sees an opportunity for profits! This is spot zoning!
Susie Kaszynski
610 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Page 544
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 545
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:54:01 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
Jan, I read your letter. Mayor
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 546
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:01:02 -0600
To: "Jan Scott" <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Cc: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>;
"khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>;
"pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>;
"wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Opposition to rezoning of 685 Peak View
You are very welcome.
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
Thanks Marie
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:31 PM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak
View.
Jan Scott
512 Devon
Page 547
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 09:04:33 -0600
To: "Frank Lancaster" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Please represent your citizens!!!
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense to me now.
vp
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM Frank Lancaster <franklancaster@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Vicki,
Thanks for your e-mail. Sorry about the confusion with my official email address. The Town
had to use a little different template because of my previous employment with the town. In
the case of an open records request, they needed to be able to differentiate between my e-mails
while I was the Town Administrator and e-mails as a Trustee.
Thanks,
Frank
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:17 PM Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com> wrote:
Hope the email address discrepancies can be resolved for communication.
Thanks —-
r & vp
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Please represent your citizens!!!
To: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Thank you Vicki and Ricky!
FYI Trustee Lancaster's email is different.
It is franklancaster@estes.org
I was told it is his whole first name to differentiate from when he was Town Administrator.
Had hoped to see you at the Farmer's Market tomorrow to no avail.
I have a commitment that I cannot change.
I will be there next week.
Hopefully others will show up tomorrow though no one replied 🙁.
People are busy.
I understand.
With thanks, again,
KLP
PEP STRONG!!!
Page 548
PS I presume that you like our ad this week???
Page 549
Page 550
From: Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 6:28 PM
To: Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>; Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>; Patrick
Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>; Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>; bmacalpine@estes.org
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; flancaster@estes.org <flancaster@estes.org>; khazelton@estes.org
<khazelton@estes.org>; planning@estes.org <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Please represent your citizens!!!
Page 551
Page 552
Vicki & Ricky Papineau
1711 Dekker Circle
Page 553
From: Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 01:34:14 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3 minutes allowed and will have a slide (not slide
show) for each Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her timeline, and be on the screen for each Speaker
to click to their slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the 12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I await your reply on Friday.
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages. I will get back to yo by Friday. I will be
in Fort Collins tomorrow at platte River power Authority board meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will need to give their name and address clearly at
the beginning of the recording. I think these will need to be limited to two or three people. I will
connect Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
Page 554
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels and your Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back memories of our Daughter starting here
at EPES as you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to confirm two (2) items as well as to ask
about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town Board meeting on 9/26/23 where you
and the Board are scheduled to hear the proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision
requests for 685 Peak View Drive which you have now been hearing about for
almost nine (9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting, during Public Comment, I asked you
about having a slide show during our three (3) minutes of Public Comment for the
upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and it was left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three (3) minutes and that you would allow a
slide show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not changed your mind as we prepare for this
very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings, either video and audio or strictly audio, from
Citizens who are unable to be physically present to speak at the meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not allow three (3) minutes from a recording to
be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be heard via a recording, please let me know.
I presume that this is your decision as the aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another Citizen give up their three (3) minutes by
stepping up to the mic and playing the recording; however, most people want to
use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be heard, to be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off of phones or simple video recordings
within your very generous three (3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at your convenience, or I will await your
reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 555
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:52:27 -0600
To: "Kristine L Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
👍
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:34 PM Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3 minutes allowed and will have a slide (not
slide show) for each Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her timeline, and be on the screen for each
Speaker to click to their slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the 12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I await your reply on Friday.
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages. I will get back to yo by Friday. I will
be in Fort Collins tomorrow at platte River power Authority board meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will need to give their name and address clearly
at the beginning of the recording. I think these will need to be limited to two or three people. I
will connect Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
Page 556
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels and your Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back memories of our Daughter starting
here at EPES as you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to confirm two (2) items as well as to ask
about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town Board meeting on 9/26/23 where you
and the Board are scheduled to hear the proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision
requests for 685 Peak View Drive which you have now been hearing about for
almost nine (9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting, during Public Comment, I asked you
about having a slide show during our three (3) minutes of Public Comment for
the upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and it was left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three (3) minutes and that you would allow a
slide show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not changed your mind as we prepare for
this very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings, either video and audio or strictly audio,
from Citizens who are unable to be physically present to speak at the meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not allow three (3) minutes from a recording
to be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be heard via a recording, please let me
know.
I presume that this is your decision as the aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another Citizen give up their three (3) minutes by
stepping up to the mic and playing the recording; however, most people want to
use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be heard, to be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off of phones or simple video recordings
within your very generous three (3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at your convenience, or I will await
your reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
Page 557
My lips are sealed.
Page 558
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 15:53:56 -0600
To: "Kristine L Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
I just returned home from the PRPA meeting.
At this time it does not appear that the Peakview hearing will be at our next board meeting.
However, when you find it on the final agenda, which occurs the Wednesday before the town
board meeting I will verify for you that the hearing is happening. Your group will be allowed to
speak at that hearing, and the organization of the slides will be important so the speakers from
your group have no problem giving their testimony. There will be a three minute time limit per
speaker. And I understand there will be one picture per speaker.
The individuals who are not available in person for the hearing will need to submit their
comments in written format, addressing them to the Board of Trustees. Another option is
addressing them to the clerks office to disseminate to the board of trustees. They will be
included in the packet. I believe this will be the most efficient way to run the Hearing.
I will discuss with the clerks office how to handle the public sign-up sheet for the hearing. As we
want the sign up sheet to match the order of the pictures. Perhaps we can put the names in order
of those providing the comments that correspond to the picture when the sign-up sheet is initially
put out.
Have a good evening Kristine.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
👍
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:34 PM Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com>
wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3 minutes allowed and will have a
slide (not slide show) for each Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her timeline, and be on the screen for
each Speaker to click to their slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Page 559
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the 12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I await your reply on Friday.
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages. I will get back to yo by
Friday. I will be in Fort Collins tomorrow at platte River power Authority board
meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will need to give their name and
address clearly at the beginning of the recording. I think these will need to be
limited to two or three people. I will connect Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L Poppitz
<kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels and your Family in the
papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back memories of our
Daughter starting here at EPES as you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to confirm two (2) items as
well as to ask about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town Board meeting on
9/26/23 where you and the Board are scheduled to hear the
Page 560
proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision requests for 685 Peak View
Drive which you have now been hearing about for almost nine
(9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting, during Public Comment, I
asked you about having a slide show during our three (3) minutes of
Public Comment for the upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and it was left for you to
decide.
You said that we would each have three (3) minutes and that you
would allow a slide show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not changed your mind as we
prepare for this very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings, either video and audio or
strictly audio, from Citizens who are unable to be physically present
to speak at the meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not allow three (3) minutes from
a recording to be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be heard via a recording, please
let me know.
I presume that this is your decision as the aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another Citizen give up their three (3)
minutes by stepping up to the mic and playing the recording;
however, most people want to use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be heard, to be able to
heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off of phones or simple
video recordings within your very generous three (3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at your convenience, or I
will await your reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 561
From: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Sent: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:28:11 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hello again,
Thank * you :)
My apologies for my typos.
Enjoy your day, every day.
With thanks,
KLP
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Sep 5, 2023, at 9:08 AM, Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Hahn you for your reply.
I hope that you had a nice weekend.
The 685 PV is on the Town calendar for 9/26/23; however I do not believe that the
Applicant has met requirements and deadlines.
What is preventing people who cannot attend from submitting a voice or video, 3
minutes or less, to be played at the TB Meeting?
2-3 people would be great.
I do not understand how this would not be allowed.
I thank you for your thorough reply.
Yes, we will have the slides aligned with the Speakers.
We’re prepared and will be effective and efficient.
This will be a long meeting.
Again, I thank you Mayor.
Warmly,
KLP
PS I hope that I did not offend you by asking about your re-election plans.
If I did, it was not intentional!
I’m simply curious.
I will await your decision like everyone else.
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Page 562
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Aug 31, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
wrote:
Hi Kristine,
I just returned home from the PRPA meeting.
At this time it does not appear that the Peakview hearing will be at our
next board meeting. However, when you find it on the final agenda,
which occurs the Wednesday before the town board meeting I will
verify for you that the hearing is happening. Your group will be allowed
to speak at that hearing, and the organization of the slides will be
important so the speakers from your group have no problem giving their
testimony. There will be a three minute time limit per speaker. And I
understand there will be one picture per speaker.
The individuals who are not available in person for the hearing will
need to submit their comments in written format, addressing them to
the Board of Trustees. Another option is addressing them to the clerks
office to disseminate to the board of trustees. They will be included in
the packet. I believe this will be the most efficient way to run the
Hearing.
I will discuss with the clerks office how to handle the public sign-up
sheet for the hearing. As we want the sign up sheet to match the order of
the pictures. Perhaps we can put the names in order of those providing
the comments that correspond to the picture when the sign-up sheet is
initially put out.
Have a good evening Kristine.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Wendy Koenig
<wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
👍
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:34 PM Kristine L Poppitz
<KJPOPPITZ@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
Page 563
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3 minutes
allowed and will have a slide (not slide show) for each
Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her timeline,
and be on the screen for each Speaker to click to their
slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the 12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated
Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I
await your reply on Friday.
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages. I
will get back to yo by Friday. I will be in Fort Collins
tomorrow at platte River power Authority board
meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will need
to give their name and address clearly at the beginning of
the recording. I think these will need to be limited to two
or three people. I will connect Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L
Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
Page 564
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most
are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels
and your Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back
memories of our Daughter starting here at
EPES as you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to
confirm two (2) items as well as to ask
about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town
Board meeting on 9/26/23 where you and
the Board are scheduled to hear the
proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision
requests for 685 Peak View Drive which you
have now been hearing about for almost
nine (9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting,
during Public Comment, I asked you about
having a slide show during our three (3)
minutes of Public Comment for the
upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and
it was left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three (3)
minutes and that you would allow a slide
show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not
changed your mind as we prepare for this
very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings,
either video and audio or strictly audio,
from Citizens who are unable to be
physically present to speak at the meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not
allow three (3) minutes from a recording to
be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be
heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be
heard via a recording, please let me know.
I presume that this is your decision as the
aforementioned items are.
Page 565
An option would be to have another Citizen
give up their three (3) minutes by stepping
up to the mic and playing the recording;
however, most people want to use their
time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be
heard, to be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off
of phones or simple video recordings within
your very generous three (3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at
your convenience, or I will await your reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if
you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 566
From: Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com>
Sent: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:08:50 +0000
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hello Mayor,
Hahn you for your reply.
I hope that you had a nice weekend.
The 685 PV is on the Town calendar for 9/26/23; however I do not believe that the Applicant has
met requirements and deadlines.
What is preventing people who cannot attend from submitting a voice or video, 3 minutes or less,
to be played at the TB Meeting?
2-3 people would be great.
I do not understand how this would not be allowed.
I thank you for your thorough reply.
Yes, we will have the slides aligned with the Speakers.
We’re prepared and will be effective and efficient.
This will be a long meeting.
Again, I thank you Mayor.
Warmly,
KLP
PS I hope that I did not offend you by asking about your re-election plans.
If I did, it was not intentional!
I’m simply curious.
I will await your decision like everyone else.
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Aug 31, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Kristine,
I just returned home from the PRPA meeting.
At this time it does not appear that the Peakview hearing will be at our next board
meeting. However, when you find it on the final agenda, which occurs the
Wednesday before the town board meeting I will verify for you that the hearing is
happening. Your group will be allowed to speak at that hearing, and the organization
of the slides will be important so the speakers from your group have no problem
giving their testimony. There will be a three minute time limit per speaker. And I
understand there will be one picture per speaker.
The individuals who are not available in person for the hearing will need to submit
their comments in written format, addressing them to the Board of Trustees.
Page 567
Another option is addressing them to the clerks office to disseminate to the board of
trustees. They will be included in the packet. I believe this will be the most
efficient way to run the Hearing.
I will discuss with the clerks office how to handle the public sign-up sheet for the
hearing. As we want the sign up sheet to match the order of the pictures. Perhaps we
can put the names in order of those providing the comments that correspond to the
picture when the sign-up sheet is initially put out.
Have a good evening Kristine.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
wrote:
👍
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:34 PM Kristine L Poppitz
<KJPOPPITZ@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3 minutes allowed and
will have a slide (not slide show) for each Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her timeline, and be on
the screen for each Speaker to click to their slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the 12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I await your
reply on Friday.
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
Page 568
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages. I will get back
to yo by Friday. I will be in Fort Collins tomorrow at platte River
power Authority board meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will need to give their
name and address clearly at the beginning of the recording. I think
these will need to be limited to two or three people. I will connect
Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L Poppitz
<kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels and your
Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back memories of
our Daughter starting here at EPES as you did a few
years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to confirm two
(2) items as well as to ask about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town Board
meeting on 9/26/23 where you and the Board are
scheduled to hear the proposed Re-zoning and
Subdivision requests for 685 Peak View Drive which you
have now been hearing about for almost nine
(9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting, during Public
Comment, I asked you about having a slide show during
our three (3) minutes of Public Comment for the
upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and it was left
for you to decide.
Page 569
You said that we would each have three (3) minutes and
that you would allow a slide show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not changed your
mind as we prepare for this very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings, either video and
audio or strictly audio, from Citizens who are unable to
be physically present to speak at the meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not allow three (3)
minutes from a recording to be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be heard and
cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be heard via a
recording, please let me know.
I presume that this is your decision as the
aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another Citizen give up their
three (3) minutes by stepping up to the mic and playing
the recording; however, most people want to use their
time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be heard, to be
able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off of phones or
simple video recordings within your very generous three
(3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at your
convenience, or I will await your reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if you plan to run
again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 570
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:24:18 -0600
To: "Kristine L Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages. I will get back to yo by Friday. I will be
in Fort Collins tomorrow at platte River power Authority board meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will need to give their name and address clearly at
the beginning of the recording. I think these will need to be limited to two or three people. I will
connect Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels and your Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back memories of our Daughter starting here
at EPES as you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to confirm two (2) items as well as to ask
about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town Board meeting on 9/26/23 where you
and the Board are scheduled to hear the proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision
requests for 685 Peak View Drive which you have now been hearing about for
almost nine (9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting, during Public Comment, I asked you
about having a slide show during our three (3) minutes of Public Comment for the
upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and it was left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three (3) minutes and that you would allow a
slide show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not changed your mind as we prepare for this
very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings, either video and audio or strictly audio, from
Citizens who are unable to be physically present to speak at the meeting.
Page 571
Is there any reason that you would not allow three (3) minutes from a recording to
be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be heard via a recording, please let me know.
I presume that this is your decision as the aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another Citizen give up their three (3) minutes by
stepping up to the mic and playing the recording; however, most people want to
use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be heard, to be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off of phones or simple video recordings
within your very generous three (3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at your convenience, or I will await your
reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 572
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 09:30:23 -0600
To: "Kristine L Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Enjoy this lovely weather Kristine.
No offense taken regarding your question about re-election plans. I simply have not decided yet.
Mayor
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 9:28 AM Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello again,
Thank * you :)
My apologies for my typos.
Enjoy your day, every day.
With thanks,
KLP
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Sep 5, 2023, at 9:08 AM, Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Hahn you for your reply.
I hope that you had a nice weekend.
The 685 PV is on the Town calendar for 9/26/23; however I do not believe that
the Applicant has met requirements and deadlines.
What is preventing people who cannot attend from submitting a voice or video, 3
minutes or less, to be played at the TB Meeting?
2-3 people would be great.
I do not understand how this would not be allowed.
I thank you for your thorough reply.
Yes, we will have the slides aligned with the Speakers.
We’re prepared and will be effective and efficient.
This will be a long meeting.
Again, I thank you Mayor.
Warmly,
KLP
PS I hope that I did not offend you by asking about your re-election plans.
If I did, it was not intentional!
I’m simply curious.
Page 573
I will await your decision like everyone else.
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Aug 31, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
wrote:
Hi Kristine,
I just returned home from the PRPA meeting.
At this time it does not appear that the Peakview hearing will be at
our next board meeting. However, when you find it on the final
agenda, which occurs the Wednesday before the town board meeting
I will verify for you that the hearing is happening. Your group will be
allowed to speak at that hearing, and the organization of the slides
will be important so the speakers from your group have no problem
giving their testimony. There will be a three minute time limit per
speaker. And I understand there will be one picture per speaker.
The individuals who are not available in person for the hearing will
need to submit their comments in written format, addressing them to
the Board of Trustees. Another option is addressing them to the
clerks office to disseminate to the board of trustees. They will be
included in the packet. I believe this will be the most efficient way to
run the Hearing.
I will discuss with the clerks office how to handle the public sign-up
sheet for the hearing. As we want the sign up sheet to match the order
of the pictures. Perhaps we can put the names in order of those
providing the comments that correspond to the picture when the sign-
up sheet is initially put out.
Have a good evening Kristine.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Wendy Koenig
<wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
👍
Page 574
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:34 PM Kristine L Poppitz
<KJPOPPITZ@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3
minutes allowed and will have a slide (not slide show)
for each Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her
timeline, and be on the screen for each Speaker to
click to their slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the
12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated
Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I
await your reply on Friday.
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages.
I will get back to yo by Friday. I will be in Fort Collins
tomorrow at platte River power Authority board
meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will
need to give their name and address clearly at the
beginning of the recording. I think these will need to
be limited to two or three people. I will connect
Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
Page 575
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L
Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as
most are.
It has been nice hearing about your
travels and your Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings
back memories of our Daughter starting
here at EPES as you did a few years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you
to confirm two (2) items as well as to ask
about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming
Town Board meeting on 9/26/23 where
you and the Board are scheduled to hear
the proposed Re-zoning and Subdivision
requests for 685 Peak View Drive which
you have now been hearing about for
almost nine (9)months.
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board
Meeting, during Public Comment, I asked
you about having a slide show during our
three (3) minutes of Public Comment for
the upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this
and it was left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three
(3) minutes and that you would allow a
slide show during that time.
I just want to confirm that you have not
changed your mind as we prepare for this
very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings,
either video and audio or strictly audio,
from Citizens who are unable to be
physically present to speak at the
meeting.
Page 576
Is there any reason that you would not
allow three (3) minutes from a recording
to be played at the meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be
heard and cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be
heard via a recording, please let me
know.
I presume that this is your decision as the
aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another
Citizen give up their three (3) minutes by
stepping up to the mic and playing the
recording; however, most people want to
use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to
be heard, to be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings
off of phones or simple video recordings
within your very generous three (3)
minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person,
at your convenience, or I will await your
reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if
you plan to run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 577
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 09:27:10 -0600
To: "Kristine L Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
As I stated, in my previous note, we like to have people present when there are
comments. Those unable to be present are more than welcome to send their comments to the
town board members, and their comments will be in the packets. This is an acceptable hearing
format. Mayor.
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 9:08 AM Kristine L Poppitz <KJPOPPITZ@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Hahn you for your reply.
I hope that you had a nice weekend.
The 685 PV is on the Town calendar for 9/26/23; however I do not believe that the Applicant
has met requirements and deadlines.
What is preventing people who cannot attend from submitting a voice or video, 3 minutes or
less, to be played at the TB Meeting?
2-3 people would be great.
I do not understand how this would not be allowed.
I thank you for your thorough reply.
Yes, we will have the slides aligned with the Speakers.
We’re prepared and will be effective and efficient.
This will be a long meeting.
Again, I thank you Mayor.
Warmly,
KLP
PS I hope that I did not offend you by asking about your re-election plans.
If I did, it was not intentional!
I’m simply curious.
I will await your decision like everyone else.
Sent from my iPhone
Have a fabYOUlous day!
Thank you!
Kristine L. Poppitz (KLP)
On Aug 31, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hi Kristine,
I just returned home from the PRPA meeting.
At this time it does not appear that the Peakview hearing will be at our next board
meeting. However, when you find it on the final agenda, which occurs the
Page 578
Wednesday before the town board meeting I will verify for you that the hearing is
happening. Your group will be allowed to speak at that hearing, and the
organization of the slides will be important so the speakers from your group have
no problem giving their testimony. There will be a three minute time limit per
speaker. And I understand there will be one picture per speaker.
The individuals who are not available in person for the hearing will need to
submit their comments in written format, addressing them to the Board of
Trustees. Another option is addressing them to the clerks office to disseminate to
the board of trustees. They will be included in the packet. I believe this will be
the most efficient way to run the Hearing.
I will discuss with the clerks office how to handle the public sign-up sheet for the
hearing. As we want the sign up sheet to match the order of the pictures. Perhaps
we can put the names in order of those providing the comments that correspond to
the picture when the sign-up sheet is initially put out.
Have a good evening Kristine.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
wrote:
👍
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:34 PM Kristine L Poppitz
<KJPOPPITZ@msn.com> wrote:
Hello Mayor,
Thank you for the very prompt reply, wow 🙂.
To be clear, we will each be speaking for the 3 minutes allowed
and will have a slide (not slide show) for each Speaker.
The slides will be submitted to Bunny, per her timeline, and be on
the screen for each Speaker to click to their slide.
They will be in order and very organized.
Does that make sense?
Have a great trip to FOCO for the PRPA Board Mtg.
I look forward to hearing your liaison report on the 12th.
2-3 people is likely perfect and much appreciated Mayor.
You will recognize one person for sure.
I will make sure that they are very clear for all to hear.
I truly appreciate your prompt reply this evening and I await your
reply on Friday.
Page 579
Be safe and have fun, always!
With thanks,
KLP
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:24 PM
To: Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Private: a few items
Hi Kristine,
The three minute slide show is fine with me.
Let me double check regarding the recorded messages. I will get
back to yo by Friday. I will be in Fort Collins tomorrow at platte
River power Authority board meeting.
If we are able to use recordings, the individual will need to give
their name and address clearly at the beginning of the recording. I
think these will need to be limited to two or three people. I will
connect Friday.
Mayor Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2023, at 7:14 PM, Kristine L Poppitz
<kjpoppitz@msn.com> wrote:
Hello,
I hope that you are well.
It has been a beautiful day in Estes, as most are.
It has been nice hearing about your travels and your
Family in the papers.
Your Grandson in Kindergarten brings back memories
of our Daughter starting here at EPES as you did a few
years ago.
On a "business" note, I am emailing you to confirm
two (2) items as well as to ask about another item.
They are all related to the upcoming Town Board
meeting on 9/26/23 where you and the Board are
scheduled to hear the proposed Re-zoning and
Subdivision requests for 685 Peak View Drive which
you have now been hearing about for almost nine
(9)months.
Page 580
At the May 23, 2023 Town Board Meeting, during
Public Comment, I asked you about having a slide
show during our three (3) minutes of Public Comment
for the upcoming meeting.
You and Attorney Kramer discussed this and it was
left for you to decide.
You said that we would each have three (3) minutes
and that you would allow a slide show during that
time.
I just want to confirm that you have not changed your
mind as we prepare for this very important meeting.
I also wanted to ask about recordings, either video
and audio or strictly audio, from Citizens who are
unable to be physically present to speak at the
meeting.
Is there any reason that you would not allow three (3)
minutes from a recording to be played at the
meeting?
I have a few Residents who want to be heard and
cannot attend.
If there is a reason that they cannot be heard via a
recording, please let me know.
I presume that this is your decision as the
aforementioned items are.
An option would be to have another Citizen give up
their three (3) minutes by stepping up to the mic and
playing the recording; however, most people want to
use their time as well.
It is hard yet crucial for all who want to be heard, to
be able to heard.
FYI we can play simple voice recordings off of phones
or simple video recordings within your very generous
three (3) minutes.
I am available to talk about this in person, at your
convenience, or I will await your reply.
With sincere thanks Mayor,
KLP
PS Curious when you plan to announce if you plan to
run again?
Again, I am just curious and hopeful 🙂.
My lips are sealed.
Page 581
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:22:19 -0600
To: "Terry Rustin" <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: problems with one of the Town's departments
Good afternoon, Terry. I have read your email and have forwarded it to our Town
Administrator, who handles our staff and departments directly.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 6:57 PM Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> wrote:
To the Mayor and Trustees, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the Town
Administrator:
The Town website states the following:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan.
Core services include:
Land Use Consultations: What is zoning and how does it impact your
property? We look forward to assisting you with questions or concerns about
our adopted codes and how they apply to your property or business. Walk-ins
are welcomed, but appointments are preferred to ensure that a staff
member is available.
Development Review: We coordinate the review of development
applications such as subdivisions, rezonings, variance and development
plans.
Evidence has been accumulating regarding inappropriately favorable treatment of a particular
developer by the Planning and Zoning Division. We now have public statements by the
developer, acknowledging that he has received consultation and advice from the Planning and
Zoning Division on how prepare an application for rezoning that manipulates and subverts the
Development Code.
In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a developer, made the following
statement, recorded by several individuals in attendance:
“You may have seen a plan with four lots, and that...uh, working with the uh, new town
planner, uh Kara, well, she's not new, but unfortunately Jeff Woeber left, uh, and so
Kara looked at it and she said, 'Gee, I think it would be better if you reduce it down to
four overall lots, three and the one remaining large piece, would be the fourth lot,' and
Page 582
so I agreed to that, I said, 'Okay, it is simpler, and it makes the lots a little bigger and it
gets rid of this weird calculation for open space, but it allowed for a minimum smaller
than a half acre.'”
To quote again from the Town's website:
The Planning and Zoning Division coordinates development in Estes Park by
administering and enforcing the Estes Park Development Code and
implementing the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan. …. What is zoning and how
does it impact your property? We look forward to assisting you with
questions or concerns about our adopted codes and how they apply to your
property or business.
The voluntary admission by the developer transcribed above is posted online at
https://vimeo.com/843489332.
The Development Code requires that subdivisions of five or more units provide for open space
of 15 percent of the property. A subdivision of four lots is not required to provide open space.
The developer submitted a plan for four half-acre lots on 2.4 acres, with one domicile on 5.2
acres and 15 percent open space on May 31, 2023. This was revised by erasing or whiting out
the fourth half-acre lot and the open space, and resubmitted the hand-drawn plat with three
half-acre lots on 1.7 acres, with one domicile on 5.9 acres and no significant open space on
June 26, 2023. By taking the advice of the Planning and Zoning staff, as he said he did, the
developer eliminated the open space, creating larger lots which will sell at a higher price.
This admission reveals that the staff in the Planning and Zoning Division does more than
inform this developer how the Development Code impacts his property, does more than assist
him with questions and concerns about the adopted codes and how they affect his property,
and does more than coordinate the review of applications. In fact, the Planning and Zoning
Division gives this developer advice on how to subdivide his property, a strategy that he had
not thought of himself, and which he subsequently followed. Furthermore, the advice
concerned how the developer could avoid the bothersome code requirement for 15 percent
open space for subdivisions of five or more units, identified as “weird” by the developer. This
is the code the Planning and Zoning Division is charged with enforcing.
Was the developer making this up? Was he just bragging about his connections? Was he
exaggerating about his influence with Town staff?
The evidence is that the Planning and Zoning staff has been advising this developer how to
subvert the Development Code that they are charged with administering and enforcing.
When this rezoning request comes before the Planning Commission and the Trustees, I hope
you will consider this evidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you
Sincerely,
Page 583
Terry A. Rustin
555-B Devon Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 584
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:18:23 -0600
To: "Charlie Nugent" <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Subject: Re: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
I have received and read your email. I cannot comment at this time. Thanks Marie
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:45 PM Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net> wrote:
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very
strong objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View
Drive in whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or
construction distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre
parcel. The second purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to
neighboring residents and their properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met
the desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre
property that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every
neighboring property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is
not in conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further,
this proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
Page 585
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or
any other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and
paved street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from
the 7.62 acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing
properties and along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained
down-pours. With the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals
offered to date, runoff will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be
sufficient to contain that amount of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the
prevailing winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds
diverted by the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large
snow drift accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south
and east of the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this
behavior. One can imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or
a dwelling fire initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake
and Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National
Park. Additionally, The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park,
provides Rock Climbing opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for
a large number of individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic
and resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new
dwellings will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable
transient residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely
lack of understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger
neighborhood. Further, despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic
nature of the eventual dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents,
even including a very large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as
per the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood,
all being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to
draw off of the existing electrical grid!
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
Page 586
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is
that dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39
lots in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily
all current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased
property values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an
important consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed
change amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations
gained by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other
communities around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that
supports many of my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I
directly designed layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where
I was employed. I have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my
former home (in another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing,
electrical, heating etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes
beyond just aesthetics, but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric,
sewer, as well as additional issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the
development. There are other professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with
more experience and more credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer
even better insight than my own into the several specific concerns cited above. These
individuals should be consulted and their recommendations must be seriously considered when
evaluating the proposal for re-zoning this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire
to live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While
those towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made
my decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of
particular business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to
overwhelm local residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique
character of those towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values
treasured by the long time residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend
their money in their towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns,
but the towns were never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never
again returned and took their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes
Park and is exampled right here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as
Frank Theis/CMS Planning & Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood
with great financial reward for himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave
Page 587
behind when they retire from their life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would
suggest that Frank Theis could have a wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current
zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six homes thereon consistent with the current
neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels, also a builder, who’s legacy continues to
be held in high esteem within our community. There is a reason for that! The same could be
for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change
to the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
--
Dr. Marie Cenac
Mayor pro tem
Town of Estes Park
Page 588
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:51:38 -0600
To: "Charlie Nugent" <cnugentsix@centurylink.net>
Subject: Re: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Dear Charlie and Betty,
I have read your comments regarding 685 Peak View Drive.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:45 PM Charlie Nugent <cnugentsix@centurylink.net> wrote:
September 10, 2023
Subject: Proposed Re-zoning of 7.62 Acre Parcel Located at 685 Peak View Drive
Mayor Wendy Koenig wkoenig@estes.org
Trustee Frank Lancaster franklancaster@estes.org
Trustee Marie Cenac mcenac@estes.org
Trustee Barbara MacAlpine bmacalpine@estes.org
Trustee Patrick Martchink pmartchink@estes.org
Trustee Cindy Younglund cyounglund@estes.org
Trustee Kirby Hazelton khazelton@estes.org
Planning/Community Development planning@estes.org
jwoeber@estes.org
The purpose of this letter is to serve two purposes. The first purpose is to express my very
strong objection to any proposed re-zoning of the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View
Drive in whole or in part from E-1 to any other zoning that could result in any platting or
construction distinct from that specified by current E-1 zoning on the full 7.62 acre
parcel. The second purpose is to describe several probable and concerning impacts to
neighboring residents and their properties.
Residents living in adjoining properties are professional persons who have worked hard to
achieve success and reward in their chosen professions. Their hard work accorded them the
opportunity to select a place to live in retirement that offered beauty and conditions for privacy
and relaxation as well. The properties surrounding and bordering 685 Peak View Drive met
the desires and requirements for the homeowners selecting this their preferred neighborhood in
which to live. Most have invested significant monetary resources to live within our
neighborhood. Any extensive building of a huge number of dwellings on this 7.62 acre
property that exceeds the zoning requirements of E-1, will have major impacts on every
neighboring property! The most recent proposal for three 1/2 acre lots and one 5.83 acre lot is
Page 589
not in conformance of current E-1 zoning requirements for the 7.62 acre property. Further,
this proposal put forward by CMS Planning & Development, Inc. appears as a manipulation to
establish precedent in changing E-1 zoning for the full 7.62 acreage as a first step to achieving
the intended goal for creating a high-density development thereon! As stated, any such
development will severely impact adjoining properties and the neighborhood.
1.) There will be major impact for water runoff from either a large number of dwellings or
any other large packed building structures on this 7.62 acres. The combined roof area and
paved street, servicing the new constructed dwellings, will accelerate a very large runoff from
the 7.62 acres. The volume of water descending over Peak View Drive onto the opposing
properties and along Twin Drive and Longs Drive is already huge during heavy sustained
down-pours. With the hardened surfaces attendant with the several construction proposals
offered to date, runoff will become significantly worse. A detention pond will not be
sufficient to contain that amount of water.
2.) With the amount of proposed construction, there will be significant impact on the
prevailing winds in an area which is typically with the highest wind speeds in our area. Winds
diverted by the construction will carry snow generally toward the south-east depositing large
snow drift accumulations on Peak View Drive and against outside walls of homes to the south
and east of the construction. Other recent construction has already demonstrated this
behavior. One can imagine what such winds could do with flames in the event of a wildfire or
a dwelling fire initiated inside the completed planned construction!
3.) Peak View Drive currently carries a large volume of traffic which becomes greatly
exaggerated during the tourist season. This is due to Estes Park Campground at Mary's Lake
and Peak View providing an alternative through-way for access to the National
Park. Additionally, The Thumb located on Prospect Mountain, now owned by Estes Park,
provides Rock Climbing opportunities for enthusiasts which comes with associated traffic for
a large number of individuals embracing that adventure.
4.) Aside from what can be noisy traffic along Peak View Drive during the tourist season, our
neighborhood is a quiet and comfortable place to live. This environment of increased traffic
and resulting noise in conjunction with noise generated from a dense development of new
dwellings will destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhood. The uncertain but probable
transient residents of the eventual dense dwellings on this 7.62 acres, would imply a likely
lack of understanding for local issues such as fire that could endanger the larger
neighborhood. Further, despite any proposed covenants for the future development, the basic
nature of the eventual dwellings suggest there would be an uncertain continuity of residents,
even including a very large numbers of persons residing inside individual residences.
5.) The infrastructure needed to supply gas, water, sewer, and even electric, will require
significant enhancement in order to meet the needs of any eventual large number of dwellings
constructed within a large development at 685 Peak View Drive, if E-1 zoning is changed as
per the application by CMS. For some current homes in the neighborhood, there already are
concerns for available water pressure and water quality. Then, consider the impact of possibly
50 more vehicles in-and-out onto Peak View Drive and then onto Hwy-7 .... and now consider
Page 590
these 50 new vehicles along with all of those other vehicles within the greater neighborhood,
all being EV (per government mandate) .... and now consider all of these EV’s attempting to
draw off of the existing electrical grid!
6.) Whereas there appears to be enthusiasm amongst some citizens and politicians to promote
new construction of so-called “affordable housing” within existing communities, the truth is
that dwellings that are priced over $450K, much less $650K or more, wildly stretches one’s
imagination in order to believe such dwellings meet the definition of being affordable for the
lower or medium income population! As such, there can only be uncertainty about what the
future for this uncertain development becomes in terms of future residents, rentals, upkeep,
etc. Further, if the zoning change actually becomes implemented, how can the current
neighboring residents be confident and assured about what would, after the fact of re-zoning,
actually be constructed on that 7.62 acre tract?
7.) A re-zoned 7.62 parcel that may evolve into a large number of small lots (from 24 to 39
lots in initial proposals) will bring large profit to the applicant CMS - Frank Theis. Contrarily
all current residents within the zoned E-1 region, will be impacted by significant decreased
property values. The minimum lot size defined within the current E-1 zoning, was an
important consideration for residents choosing to purchase property in this area. The proposed
change amounts to a betrayal of trust and a real stab in the back to all of the current residents!
These concerns outlined above, are derived from personal participation and observations
gained by living within this current community and further by direct observation of other
communities around the country. Additionally, I have actual occupational background that
supports many of my concerns. Prior to my engineering work in the Aero-Space industry, I
directly designed layouts of several subdivisions for the Architectural-Engineering firm where
I was employed. I have designed numerous homes and, in fact, specifically constructed my
former home (in another State) with my very own hands, including all carpentry, plumbing,
electrical, heating etc. As such, I have understanding of homes and developments that goes
beyond just aesthetics, but delves into critical details such as supply of gas, water, electric,
sewer, as well as additional issues such as traffic flow, drainage, and erosion control across the
development. There are other professionals within our neighborhood who are likely to be with
more experience and more credentials than mine in these particular disciplines, who can offer
even better insight than my own into the several specific concerns cited above. These
individuals should be consulted and their recommendations must be seriously considered when
evaluating the proposal for re-zoning this 7.62 acre property!
Estes Park was not my initial selection, some 50+ years ago, of where one day I would retire
to live out my life. Rather, several other mountain towns drew my initial attention. While
those towns possessed the character that I desired for my eventual retirement when I first made
my decisions about them, changes began to overtake those towns. Various interests of
particular business operations, particular local politicians, and particular builders began to
overwhelm local residents with proposed changes and structures that destroyed the unique
character of those towns. The towns became a mess that no longer reflected those values
treasured by the long time residents and which had also attracted so many to visit and spend
their money in their towns. Yes, others subsequently came to visit and spend in those towns,
Page 591
but the towns were never again to be so lovely. Consequently, very many folks just never
again returned and took their money and lives elsewhere. This is something I fear for Estes
Park and is exampled right here in our neighborhood where particular individuals such as
Frank Theis/CMS Planning & Development wish to change the character of our neighborhood
with great financial reward for himself. Most folks wish to have a proud legacy to leave
behind when they retire from their life’s work or even when the end of life arrives. I would
suggest that Frank Theis could have a wonderful legacy were he to adhere to the current
zoning for the 7.62 acres and provide six homes thereon consistent with the current
neighborhood. Consider our former Mayor Dannels, also a builder, who’s legacy continues to
be held in high esteem within our community. There is a reason for that! The same could be
for Frank Theis were he to make the right decision for our neighborhood.
Town officials are elected or otherwise appointed to serve the residents of our town. They are
not placed into those positions for the purpose of serving particular groups or individuals and
their “special interests”.... nor otherwise for the preferred interests of associated
individuals. Town residents value their homes, their neighbors, their neighborhoods, their
heritage, and the character of the town in which they live. I urge town officials to consider
seriously the views of town residents and please vote NO, against the proposed zoning change
to the 7.62 acre parcel located at 685 Peak View Drive in Estes Park!
Sincerely,
Charles and Betty Nugent
761 Meeker Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 592
From: carol_peterson02@earthlink.net <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net >
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:24:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Re: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
I apologize for this automatic reply to your email.
To control spam, I now allow incoming messages only from senders I have approved
beforehand.
If you would like to be added to my list of approved senders, please fill out the short request
form (see link below). Once I approve you, I will receive your original message in my inbox.
You do not need to resend your message. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.
Click the link below to fill out the request:
https://webmail1.earthlink.net/newaddme?a=carol_peterson02@earthlink.net&id=11ee-2af7-
08fcd914-b3fe-00144ff8e89f
Page 593
From: carol_peterson02@earthlink.net <carol_peterson02@earthlink.net >
Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:00:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Wendy Koenig" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Re: No Rezoning for 685 Peak View
I apologize for this automatic reply to your email.
To control spam, I now allow incoming messages only from senders I have approved
beforehand.
If you would like to be added to my list of approved senders, please fill out the short request
form (see link below). Once I approve you, I will receive your original message in my inbox.
You do not need to resend your message. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.
Click the link below to fill out the request:
https://webmail1.earthlink.net/newaddme?a=carol_peterson02@earthlink.net&id=11ee-24f5-
c3ee6f1a-b286-00144ffaa42b
Page 594
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:03:25 -0700
To: "RONALD HOULETTE" <operasemi@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Rezoning opposition
Thank you for sending your comments.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2023, at 7:55 AM, RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
wrote:
Thank you
Ronald Houlette and Laura Campbell
<PEP speech.doc>
Page 595
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:00:31 -0600
To: "Steve Wende" <stevew@stevewende.com>
Subject: Re: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in conversation about
the topic until the public hearing.
I am glad that you love Estes Park as much as I do!
Thanks Marie
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:52 AM Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com> wrote:
Dear Trustee Cenac,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time
and hard work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I
wanted to write because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new
perspectives, which are bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in
perspective, like any new ideas, can bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great
danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically
increase density in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the
less affluent, and the missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing
wonderful things as the city rebuilds its entire downtown core. The problem comes when
people forget that this good idea was born, as reported in newspapers as varied as the New
York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to make large cities work better. It was
never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing
middle? Of course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address
those housing needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such
development needs to be accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its
own internal DNA. Otherwise, a town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The
proposed development merely stacks higher density into an area not intended or designed for
it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case study in applying a new urban idea
inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term residents who trusted the
zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Page 596
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this
point, this application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code
Regulations. The character of the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or
services in that area to support people with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower
income people at all. By Estes Park definition, the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide
for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway linkages to Downtown Estes Park and
existing systems, but none is proposed with this application. Theoretically, much of that is not
required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at this time, but that begs the question of
what will happen when the rest of the property is developed. And it is crucial for the Town to
ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is not a transitional or
infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in conditions that
makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character
intact.
Trustee Cenac, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more
traffic, longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to
fire, more concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as
long as more meaningful and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is
being added. However, the proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to
more of the people (like me) already here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the
door to higher density for the sake of density. The developer will just sell a few less homes
while still making money. Please reject the rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
Page 597
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 598
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 18:03:18 +0000
To: "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Thank you. Blessings on your leadership! Steve
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
On Sep 3, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org> wrote:
I have read your email and thank you for your input. I should not engage in
conversation about the topic until the public hearing.
I am glad that you love Estes Park as much as I do!
Thanks Marie
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:52 AM Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
wrote:
Dear Trustee Cenac,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for
your time and hard work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all
that is before you. I wanted to write because we all realize there are new ideas
developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are bringing significant
changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to
radically increase density in order to create new housing and easier transportation
for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle. I am from Houston,
and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds its entire
Page 599
downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was
born, as reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street
Journal, in the attempt to make large cities work better. It was never intended to
be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and
the missing middle? Of course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview
does nothing to address those housing needs. In addition, any competent urban
planner will tell you that such development needs to be accomplished in a way
congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development
merely stacks higher density into an area not intended or designed for it. As such,
approving this proposal would become a case study in applying a new urban idea
inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term residents who
trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver
suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning
process to this point, this application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive
Plan and Code Regulations. The character of the area is minimum 1 acre
lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people with
greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes
Park definition, the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks,
open space and trail/bikeway linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing
systems, but none is proposed with this application. Theoretically, much of that is
not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at this time, but that begs
the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed. And
it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this
step. This area is not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from
downtown. There has been no change in conditions that makes this rezoning
necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our
character intact.
Trustee Cenac, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could
have more traffic, longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure,
greater vulnerability to fire, more concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to
put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful and appropriate
workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
Page 600
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the
people (like me) already here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the
door to higher density for the sake of density. The developer will just sell a few
less homes while still making money. Please reject the rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 601
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:30:41 -0600
To: "Earl & Earlene Knox" <Earlearlene@beyondbb.com>
Subject: Re: Rezoning
I have read your note regarding rezoning.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 14, 2023, at 9:28 AM, Earl & Earlene Knox <Earlearlene@beyondbb.com> wrote:
>
> Please do not allow Rezoning on Peak View. That is not a good location for low income housing. It is not
conducive for that area
>
> Sent from my iPhone
Page 602
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 12:39:15 -0600
To: "Jed Eide" <jeide@alliarch.com>
Subject: Re: Vision for our Town
Thank you for expressing your comments about 685 Peak View.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 12:23 PM Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com> wrote:
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of
Estes Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and
charm – and work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as
has happened to so many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be
judged on whether it enhances or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes
Park – Estes Park. A place like no other that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your
constituents – dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning
change. Take a long term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Page 603
Town of Estes Park
Page 604
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 19:00:55 -0600
To: "Daniel Scace" <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: What is the real problem?
Thank you for your comments Mr. Scace.
Mayor Koenig
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 2:05 PM Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense,
with proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at
hand. Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful
deviation from long established planning, and something they
perceive leaving the community less desirable from many
aspects (consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential
for wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from
loving our gateway Town to death, while at the same time
making progress towards a sustainable and lovable future.
How can government and citizens work together on this?
Page 605
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of
the situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue
to speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a
decision by the next step in the process, while preparing for
what's next. It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It
seems shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern,
manage established processes, and protect the peoples
interests. We know it doesn't always happen that way, but
please don't criticize or chastise citizens when they are
engaged in town affairs and wanting to make ours and our
Town's future as bright as possible. After all, we live here and
love it here, but don't want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death".
Long term planning is serious business. It requires citizens,
planners and governing bodies to treat each other with respect
Page 606
and listen to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm
opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to
developing it as currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to
finding realistic solutions to housing for all in our community.
Let's just not kill it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 607
From: Earl & Earlene Knox <Earlearlene@beyondbb.com>
Sent: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:27:54 -0600
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning
Please do not allow Rezoning on Peak View. That is not a good location for low income housing. It is not
conducive for that area
Sent from my iPhone
Page 608
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:54:58 -0600 (MDT)
To: "jwoeber@estes.org" <jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning opposition
Attachments: PEP speech.doc
Importance: Normal
Thank you
Ronald Houlette and Laura Campbell
Page 609
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:54:58 -0600 (MDT)
To: "jwoeber@estes.org" <jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning opposition
Attachments: PEP speech.doc
Importance: Normal
Thank you
Ronald Houlette and Laura Campbell
Page 610
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:54:58 -0600 (MDT)
To: "jwoeber@estes.org" <jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning opposition
Attachments: PEP speech.doc
Importance: Normal
Thank you
Ronald Houlette and Laura Campbell
Page 611
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:54:58 -0600 (MDT)
To: "jwoeber@estes.org" <jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning opposition
Attachments: PEP speech.doc
Importance: Normal
Thank you
Ronald Houlette and Laura Campbell
Page 612
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:54:58 -0600 (MDT)
To: "jwoeber@estes.org" <jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning opposition
Attachments: PEP speech.doc
Importance: Normal
Thank you
Ronald Houlette and Laura Campbell
Page 613
From: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:54:58 -0600 (MDT)
To: "jwoeber@estes.org" <jwoeber@estes.org>; "jgarner@estes.org"
<jgarner@estes.org>; "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>; "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>; "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>; "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>; "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>; "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning opposition
Attachments: PEP speech.doc
Importance: Normal
Thank you
Ronald Houlette and Laura Campbell
Page 614
My name is Laura Campbell and my husband and I live on Prospect
Mountain Road and we are full time residents of Estes Park having moved
here in December, 2021. We are not wealthy but we are comfortable having
worked hard for what we have. My husband is retired however I still work to
serve our community as a registered nurse.
We first visited Estes Park in 2011 and we fell in love with the
mountains and we made it our goal to eventually move here. Like many
people who visit Estes Park, we were enamored by its beauty: majestic
mountains, flowing rivers, Lake Estes, hiking trails, attractive downtown and
perhaps most importantly, the abundance of free roaming wildlife. We liked
the unique neighborhoods and appreciated the space in between the homes.
Prior to moving here, we lived in Castle Rock for 30 years and we
saw it evolve from a small community of less than 9,000 people to what it is
now, almost 82,000. The growth in population came as no surprise since it
was clearly stated in the town’s master plan. However, high density housing
devastated the towns appeal by fostering cookie cutter communities, traffic
congestion, increased crime and too many fast food restaurants.
That type of progress is ill fated for the future of Estes Park inasmuch
as the town’s primary industry is tourism. According to the Estes Park
Vacation Guide 2022, Estes Park hosted 4 million visitors. As of November,
2022, The Estes Park website states “New Data shows tourism continues to
positively impact Economy in Estes Park.”
So what brings visitors to Estes Park? The Estes Park Travel Guide/
US News and Travel write “Nowadays, Estes Park welcomes travelers from
all walks of life who want to experience the American Rockies wilderness
while enjoying the comforts of a cozy town”. Research Estes Park on the
internet and it will have descriptors that include: quintessential mountain
town, charming, classic mountain village. Intrinsictravelers.com itemized the
5 reasons people visit Estes Park. 1) RMNP 2) The Stanley 3) wildlife 4)
desserts galore 5) camping and hiking. If the reasons why people visit our
town is destroyed by overgrowth, overdevelopment, traffic congestion,
inability to park, shop and dine in town and enduring long lines at the
grocery store, it will kill the life blood of this community.
I am a proud supporter of PEP and its fundamental mission to halt
reckless rezoning of neighborhoods under the guise of progress. While
recently collecting petition signatures in Bond Park, we were surprised that
none of the people we met with were local, they were all visitors from within
the state, out of the state and even out of the country. Many of our visitors
signed the petition enthusiastically wanting to help to preserve our
community.
Page 615
In closing, I believe promoting high density housing in Estes Park is
short sighted and will be detrimental to the community in the long run. This
is not a NIMBY saga. Like the tourists who visit, we simply want to see
trees, mountains and wildlife. If the town over develops and thereby ruins
the reason why tourists visit, they will not come. Please remember how and
why tourism keeps this town financially afloat. Destroy that and there will
not be a need for high density, affordable or workforce housing.
Page 616
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:03:58 +0000
To: "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Dear Trustee Younglund,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard
work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I wanted to write
because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are
bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density
in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the
missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds
its entire downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was born, as
reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to
make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas
regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of
course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address those housing
needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such development needs to be
accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely stacks higher density
into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
study in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term
residents who trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this
application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of
the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people
with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes Park definition,
the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway
linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at
this time, but that begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed.
And it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is
not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in
conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not
Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Trustee Younglund, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic,
longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more
Page 617
concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful
and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like me) already
here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of
density. The developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the
rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 618
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:48:32 +0000
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Dear Mayor Koenig,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard
work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I wanted to write
because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are
bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density
in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the
missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds
its entire downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was born, as
reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to
make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas
regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of
course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address those housing
needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such development needs to be
accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely stacks higher density
into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
study in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term
residents who trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this
application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of
the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people
with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes Park definition,
the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway
linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at
this time, but that begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed.
And it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is
not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in
conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not
Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Mayor Koenig, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic,
longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more
Page 619
concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful
and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like me) already
here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of
density. The developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the
rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 620
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:57:29 +0000
To: "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Dear Trustee Martchink,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard
work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I wanted to write
because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are
bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density
in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the
missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds
its entire downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was born, as
reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to
make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas
regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of
course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address those housing
needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such development needs to be
accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely stacks higher density
into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
study in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term
residents who trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this
application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of
the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people
with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes Park definition,
the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway
linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at
this time, but that begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed.
And it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is
not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in
conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not
Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Trustee Martchink, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic,
longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more
Page 621
concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful
and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like me) already
here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of
density. The developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the
rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 622
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:02:20 +0000
To: "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Dear Trustee Lancaster,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard
work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I wanted to write
because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are
bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density
in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the
missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds
its entire downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was born, as
reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to
make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas
regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of
course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address those housing
needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such development needs to be
accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely stacks higher density
into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
study in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term
residents who trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this
application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of
the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people
with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes Park definition,
the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway
linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at
this time, but that begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed.
And it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is
not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in
conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not
Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Trustee Lancaster, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic,
longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more
Page 623
concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful
and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like me) already
here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of
density. The developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the
rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 624
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:54:48 +0000
To: "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Dear Trustee Hazelton,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard
work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I wanted to write
because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are
bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density
in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the
missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds
its entire downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was born, as
reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to
make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas
regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of
course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address those housing
needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such development needs to be
accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely stacks higher density
into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
study in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term
residents who trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this
application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of
the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people
with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes Park definition,
the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway
linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at
this time, but that begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed.
And it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is
not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in
conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not
Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Trustee Hazelton, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic,
longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more
Page 625
concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful
and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like me) already
here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of
density. The developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the
rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 626
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:52:28 +0000
To: "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Dear Trustee Cenac,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard
work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I wanted to write
because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are
bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density
in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the
missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds
its entire downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was born, as
reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to
make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas
regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of
course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address those housing
needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such development needs to be
accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely stacks higher density
into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
study in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term
residents who trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this
application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of
the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people
with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes Park definition,
the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway
linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at
this time, but that begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed.
And it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is
not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in
conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not
Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Trustee Cenac, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic,
longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more
Page 627
concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful
and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like me) already
here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of
density. The developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the
rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 628
From: Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:59:01 +0000
To: "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>
Subject: Rezoning request for 685 Peakview
Dear Trustee Macalpine,
My wife and I live at 641 Longs Drive, here in Estes Park. I want to thank you for your time and hard
work, and know that you are investing your best efforts in all that is before you. I wanted to write
because we all realize there are new ideas developing in urban planning, new perspectives, which are
bringing significant changes to people’s lives. These changes in perspective, like any new ideas, can
bring great good, but can also sometimes bring great danger.
For example, the cutting edge idea in every large city in the country now is to radically increase density
in order to create new housing and easier transportation for the workforce, the less affluent, and the
missing middle. I am from Houston, and this new emphasis is doing wonderful things as the city rebuilds
its entire downtown core. The problem comes when people forget that this good idea was born, as
reported in newspapers as varied as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, in the attempt to
make large cities work better. It was never intended to be applied indiscriminately, to smaller areas
regardless of context.
Does Estes Park need to address housing for the workforce, the less affluent, and the missing middle? Of
course, but the proposed development at 685 Peakview does nothing to address those housing
needs. In addition, any competent urban planner will tell you that such development needs to be
accomplished in a way congruent with the area’s own character, its own internal DNA. Otherwise, a
town such as Estes Park stops being Estes Park. The proposed development merely stacks higher density
into an area not intended or designed for it. As such, approving this proposal would become a case
study in applying a new urban idea inappropriately, accomplishing nothing except to betray long term
residents who trusted the zoning and move us toward becoming nothing more than a Denver suburb.
Please, remember that, however words are stretched to justify the planning process to this point, this
application does not meet the Estes Park Comprehensive Plan and Code Regulations. The character of
the area is minimum 1 acre lots. There is no infrastructure or services in that area to support people
with greater need, so this proposal will not serve lower income people at all. By Estes Park definition,
the proposed E zoning is supposed to provide for additional parks, open space and trail/bikeway
linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems, but none is proposed with this
application. Theoretically, much of that is not required with only the three half-acre lots proposed at
this time, but that begs the question of what will happen when the rest of the property is developed.
And it is crucial for the Town to ask what the next step will be before approving this step. This area is
not a transitional or infill area and is not walkable from downtown. There has been no change in
conditions that makes this rezoning necessary. We are not Denver or Aurora and are certainly not
Houston.
Please follow Estes Park regulations the way Estes Park intended and keep our character intact.
Trustee Macalpine, you know that no one in Estes is sitting around wishing they could have more traffic,
longer lines at the Safeway, more pressure on the infrastructure, greater vulnerability to fire, more
Page 629
concrete and less wildlife. Are folks willing to put up with all that? Of course, as long as more meaningful
and appropriate workforce, attainable and missing middle housing is being added. However, the
proposed 685 Peakview rezoning is merely to sell more houses to more of the people (like me) already
here. That can be done without rezoning and opens the door to higher density for the sake of
density. The developer will just sell a few less homes while still making money. Please reject the
rezoning request.
With appreciation for your good work and your love for Estes Park,
Steve Wende
Dr. Steve Wende
713-822-7757
Be strong and courageous,
do not be frightened or dismayed;
for the Lord your God is with you
wherever you go.
Joshua 1:9
Page 630
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:23:37 +0000
To: "To: Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Vision for our Town
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of Estes
Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and charm – and
work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as has happened to so
many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be judged on whether it enhances
or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes Park – Estes Park. A place like no other
that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your constituents –
dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning change. Take a long
term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 631
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:23:37 +0000
To: "To: Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Vision for our Town
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of Estes
Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and charm – and
work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as has happened to so
many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be judged on whether it enhances
or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes Park – Estes Park. A place like no other
that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your constituents –
dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning change. Take a long
term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 632
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:23:37 +0000
To: "To: Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Vision for our Town
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of Estes
Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and charm – and
work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as has happened to so
many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be judged on whether it enhances
or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes Park – Estes Park. A place like no other
that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your constituents –
dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning change. Take a long
term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 633
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:23:37 +0000
To: "To: Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Vision for our Town
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of Estes
Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and charm – and
work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as has happened to so
many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be judged on whether it enhances
or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes Park – Estes Park. A place like no other
that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your constituents –
dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning change. Take a long
term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 634
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:23:37 +0000
To: "To: Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Vision for our Town
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of Estes
Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and charm – and
work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as has happened to so
many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be judged on whether it enhances
or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes Park – Estes Park. A place like no other
that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your constituents –
dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning change. Take a long
term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 635
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:23:37 +0000
To: "To: Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Vision for our Town
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of Estes
Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and charm – and
work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as has happened to so
many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be judged on whether it enhances
or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes Park – Estes Park. A place like no other
that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your constituents –
dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning change. Take a long
term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 636
From: Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:23:37 +0000
To: "To: Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Subject: Vision for our Town
Dear Planning Commission and Town Board,
As our community leaders, I ask you to develop and express a real vision for the future of Estes
Park. Think of what makes this place unique – wildlife, open space, scenic beauty, and charm – and
work to preserve it. Do not allow it to be compromised by over-development as has happened to so
many mountain towns. Any zoning change or variance request must be judged on whether it enhances
or degrades the natural and built environment that makes Estes Park – Estes Park. A place like no other
that draws so many people to visit.
With regard to the 685 Peak View development proposal, please also listen to your constituents –
dozens of whom often and vehemently expressed their opposition to the zoning change. Take a long
term view and preserve what makes this place unique!
Jed Eide
607 Longs Drive
Page 637
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: What is the real problem?
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense, with
proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at hand.
Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful deviation
from long established planning, and something they perceive
leaving the community less desirable from many aspects
(consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential for
wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from loving
our gateway Town to death, while at the same time making
progress towards a sustainable and lovable future. How can
government and citizens work together on this?
Page 638
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the
situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue to
speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a decision
by the next step in the process, while preparing for what's next.
It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It seems
shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern, manage
established processes, and protect the peoples interests. We
know it doesn't always happen that way, but please don't
criticize or chastise citizens when they are engaged in town
affairs and wanting to make ours and our Town's future as bright
as possible. After all, we live here and love it here, but don't
want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death". Long
term planning is serious business. It requires citizens, planners
and governing bodies to treat each other with respect and listen
Page 639
to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm opposed to any
rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to developing it as
currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to finding realistic
solutions to housing for all in our community. Let's just not kill
it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 640
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: What is the real problem?
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense, with
proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at hand.
Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful deviation
from long established planning, and something they perceive
leaving the community less desirable from many aspects
(consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential for
wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from loving
our gateway Town to death, while at the same time making
progress towards a sustainable and lovable future. How can
government and citizens work together on this?
Page 641
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the
situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue to
speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a decision
by the next step in the process, while preparing for what's next.
It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It seems
shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern, manage
established processes, and protect the peoples interests. We
know it doesn't always happen that way, but please don't
criticize or chastise citizens when they are engaged in town
affairs and wanting to make ours and our Town's future as bright
as possible. After all, we live here and love it here, but don't
want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death". Long
term planning is serious business. It requires citizens, planners
and governing bodies to treat each other with respect and listen
Page 642
to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm opposed to any
rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to developing it as
currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to finding realistic
solutions to housing for all in our community. Let's just not kill
it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 643
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: What is the real problem?
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense, with
proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at hand.
Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful deviation
from long established planning, and something they perceive
leaving the community less desirable from many aspects
(consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential for
wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from loving
our gateway Town to death, while at the same time making
progress towards a sustainable and lovable future. How can
government and citizens work together on this?
Page 644
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the
situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue to
speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a decision
by the next step in the process, while preparing for what's next.
It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It seems
shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern, manage
established processes, and protect the peoples interests. We
know it doesn't always happen that way, but please don't
criticize or chastise citizens when they are engaged in town
affairs and wanting to make ours and our Town's future as bright
as possible. After all, we live here and love it here, but don't
want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death". Long
term planning is serious business. It requires citizens, planners
and governing bodies to treat each other with respect and listen
Page 645
to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm opposed to any
rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to developing it as
currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to finding realistic
solutions to housing for all in our community. Let's just not kill
it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 646
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: What is the real problem?
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense, with
proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at hand.
Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful deviation
from long established planning, and something they perceive
leaving the community less desirable from many aspects
(consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential for
wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from loving
our gateway Town to death, while at the same time making
progress towards a sustainable and lovable future. How can
government and citizens work together on this?
Page 647
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the
situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue to
speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a decision
by the next step in the process, while preparing for what's next.
It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It seems
shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern, manage
established processes, and protect the peoples interests. We
know it doesn't always happen that way, but please don't
criticize or chastise citizens when they are engaged in town
affairs and wanting to make ours and our Town's future as bright
as possible. After all, we live here and love it here, but don't
want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death". Long
term planning is serious business. It requires citizens, planners
and governing bodies to treat each other with respect and listen
Page 648
to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm opposed to any
rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to developing it as
currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to finding realistic
solutions to housing for all in our community. Let's just not kill
it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 649
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: What is the real problem?
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense, with
proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at hand.
Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful deviation
from long established planning, and something they perceive
leaving the community less desirable from many aspects
(consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential for
wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from loving
our gateway Town to death, while at the same time making
progress towards a sustainable and lovable future. How can
government and citizens work together on this?
Page 650
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the
situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue to
speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a decision
by the next step in the process, while preparing for what's next.
It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It seems
shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern, manage
established processes, and protect the peoples interests. We
know it doesn't always happen that way, but please don't
criticize or chastise citizens when they are engaged in town
affairs and wanting to make ours and our Town's future as bright
as possible. After all, we live here and love it here, but don't
want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death". Long
term planning is serious business. It requires citizens, planners
and governing bodies to treat each other with respect and listen
Page 651
to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm opposed to any
rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to developing it as
currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to finding realistic
solutions to housing for all in our community. Let's just not kill
it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 652
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: What is the real problem?
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense, with
proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at hand.
Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful deviation
from long established planning, and something they perceive
leaving the community less desirable from many aspects
(consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential for
wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from loving
our gateway Town to death, while at the same time making
progress towards a sustainable and lovable future. How can
government and citizens work together on this?
Page 653
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the
situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue to
speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a decision
by the next step in the process, while preparing for what's next.
It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It seems
shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern, manage
established processes, and protect the peoples interests. We
know it doesn't always happen that way, but please don't
criticize or chastise citizens when they are engaged in town
affairs and wanting to make ours and our Town's future as bright
as possible. After all, we live here and love it here, but don't
want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death". Long
term planning is serious business. It requires citizens, planners
and governing bodies to treat each other with respect and listen
Page 654
to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm opposed to any
rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to developing it as
currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to finding realistic
solutions to housing for all in our community. Let's just not kill
it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 655
From: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Community Devleopment" <planning@estes.org>; "Wendy Koenig"
<wkoenig@estes.org>; "Marie Cenac" <mcenac@estes.org>; "Kirby Hazelton" <khazelton@estes.org>;
"Patrick Martchink" <pmartchink@estes.org>; "Barbara MacAlpine" <bmacalpine@estes.org>;
"franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>; "Cindy Younglund" <cyounglund@estes.org>
Cc: "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Subject: What is the real problem?
For Consideration, to Estes Park Planners and Leaders,
There are many communities grappling with the issues of
attainable, affordable and workforce housing, and many
government efforts are trying to focus on solutions to the issue.
If we look at recent history across Colorado and other lovable
places, citizens and administrators have clashed on attempts to
provide solutions. One side sees a problem that may be solved
with some governmental action, and the other side sees an
opportunity for an individual to get richer, at their expense, with
proposals that don't do anything to solve the problems at hand.
Many citizens view such proposals as an unhelpful deviation
from long established planning, and something they perceive
leaving the community less desirable from many aspects
(consider impact on traffic, drainage, wildlife, potential for
wildfire).
I believe the real problem is that places like Estes are being
loved to death, and we should consider how to keep from loving
our gateway Town to death, while at the same time making
progress towards a sustainable and lovable future. How can
government and citizens work together on this?
Page 656
Consider the case of rezoning 685 Peakview. Many of us are
opposed to changing the zoning for all the reasons we have
pointed out each time the developer comes up with a new
proposal for rezoning. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the
situation, and the rules that govern how we deal with such
issues, we can't have a meaningful two way conversation on it
with decision makers. (Ask anyone who works hard to resolve
conflict, and stifling conversation does not lead to good
solutions.) All the opposition can do to be heard is to continue to
speak into what may be a void, and continue to voice their
opposition. They point out legal, ethical and practical reasons
why such proposals shouldn't be approved, but there is no
dialogue and we sit on the edge of our seats awaiting a decision
by the next step in the process, while preparing for what's next.
It can be very frustrating to say the least.
Further, as we go through the process, we note deviations from
the established rules, and at times no one seems to care. So
citizens are forced to weigh in to protect their interests. It seems
shameful to me. Governments are supposed to govern, manage
established processes, and protect the peoples interests. We
know it doesn't always happen that way, but please don't
criticize or chastise citizens when they are engaged in town
affairs and wanting to make ours and our Town's future as bright
as possible. After all, we live here and love it here, but don't
want it loved to death.
The point of this is let's try to make Estes Park the model for
sustaining the future while not "loving the place to death". Long
term planning is serious business. It requires citizens, planners
and governing bodies to treat each other with respect and listen
Page 657
to their concerns, not call them NIMBYs. I'm opposed to any
rezoning of 685 Peakview. I'm not opposed to developing it as
currently zoned, and I'm not opposed to finding realistic
solutions to housing for all in our community. Let's just not kill
it.
Regards,
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 658
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "kjpoppitz@msn.com"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning
Comments submitted to the Town Board by 09-22-2023
Page 659
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 660
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "kjpoppitz@msn.com"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning Page 661
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 662
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "kjpoppitz@msn.com"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning Page 663
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 664
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "kjpoppitz@msn.com"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning Page 665
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 666
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "kjpoppitz@msn.com"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning Page 667
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 668
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "kjpoppitz@msn.com"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning Page 669
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 670
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>
Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "kjpoppitz@msn.com"
<kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning Page 671
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 672
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:46 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Great, thanks for le ng me know!
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:43 AM
To: Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
Thank you for sending your comments Bill. I have read them.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-Page 673
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Page 674
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 675
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:21 AM
To: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Thank you for your response.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:33:25 AM
To: Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
Bill,
Thank you for your email. We cannot comment at this time due to quasi judicial reasons:
Occasionally, the Town Board acts in an adjudicatory, or “quasi-judicial”, manner. In that
capacity, the Town Board operates, not as a legislature, but more like a court. In a quasi-
judicial proceeding, the Town Board is not setting new policy, but applying the standards in
an existing ordinance, statute or regulation to facts presented at a hearing, similar as to how
a judge would act. In other words, much like a court would at a trial, the Town Board is
applying the law to the facts gathered at a public hearing to arrive at its decision.
Thank you for understanding.
Marie
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM Bill Melton <billmelton37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council-
The property at 685 Peak View Drive is currently zoned
for approximately seven developments and open space
that coincides with the surrounding Neighborhood. The
zoning is consistent with the development of the HOA in
the 1980's.
Some 11 months ago, Developer Frank Theis bought the
property. First, he requested the property be Rezoned for 39
Individual sites, then 24, then 22, then four and ul mately,
as it stands now, three development sites.
In virtually every request to the Planning Department, he missed
the No ce Pos ng date, newspaper No ce date for Community
Hearings and required staking of property as required by the Town
Planning requirements.
Theis has wasted the me of the Planning Department, Council and
Page 676
Community, which is adamantly opposed to any Rezoning of this property!
But surprisingly, the Town Planning Department has supported Theis'
requests at every step and made li le effort to challenge him when he
missed deadlines!
A Community Member has taken a plat of Theis' original plat for 39
development sites and finds that the overlay lines up almost exactly
with his current request to Rezone for three developments. How many
more mes will Theis return to the Planning Département with a new
request for Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive? His Rezoning requests could
burden Town Planning and Town Council for years!
Regardless, Theis' request to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive is completely
unnecessary! The Plot is stable at the current Zoning of approximately
seven development sites and the surrounding Community and neighbors
understand exis ng zoning. There is simply no need to destabilize a
long-standing Community on and around Peak View Drive for one man's
quest. 99% of the residents of this area of Estes Park Oppose any Rezoning
of 685 Peak View Drive and "Preserve Estes Park "(PEP) has collected over
1,600 signatures of Community ci zens Opposed to any Rezoning!
Please listen to the Voters of Estes Park who do not want any Rezoning at
685 Peak View Drive. And as a resident who lives less that one block from
this Proposed Project, I add my name to the List of those in Opposi on!
As of now, the Town Council will have the ma er of Rezoning 685 Peak View
Drive on the Agenda of September 26th.
Please VOTE NO on this Rezoning request for 685 Peak View Drive!
Thank you for the dedicated work, all of you do for the Town of Estes Park!
Warmest regards, Bill
Bill Melton
510 Devon Drive
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
214-403-3737
billmelton37@hotmail.com
726 Monique Court
Cedar Hill, Texas 75104
"In God We Trust"
Page 677
Page 678
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected. The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney. When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 679
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 680
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected. The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney. When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 681
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 682
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected. The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney. When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 683
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 684
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected. The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney. When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 685
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 686
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected. The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney. When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 687
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 688
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected. The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney. When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 689
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 690
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>,
"bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund
<cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: "Frascona Joiner Goodman and Greenstein P.C." <fjgg@frascona.com>, markandrewhewitt
<markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long term
rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of military
service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved there
is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The dangers and
risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for
the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out
just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in Estes
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected. The
areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the subject
property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney. When I
moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack of
affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.Page 691
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of the
town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to visiting
Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and
character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one
wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this
unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 692
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: 685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:31 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Thank you!
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 03:24:07 PM MDT, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Thank you for writing. I have read your comments.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2023, at 3:02 PM, markandrewhewitt@aol.com wrote:
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that
time have operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc,
operating in Colorado for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management
LLC, providing affordable long term rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since
1969, after completing four years of military service in the Air Force. As a result I am
very familiar with the State of Colorado and its demographics, as well as Real Estate
laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of
a quaint small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my
mother would come from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the
suitcase was unpacked she would announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing
a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour drive, my mom would get out of the car
and look all around and say "I know this is just what heaven is going to be like!" This
has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal
request to rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the
Dannels family holdings in order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain
setting". Once a rezoning is approved there is no going back after infrastructure and
improvements have been put in place. The dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning
are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with no benefit for the affected areas,
the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would like to point out just three
reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685 Peakview.
Page 693
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing,
nor even reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing
land cost and the current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft
home built under this rezoning at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer
would need $150,000 cash for down payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual
income. This is well above any employee in Estes and in all likelihood would be
purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get extremely high monthly
rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas
affected. The areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close
proximity to the subject property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the
opinion of the town attorney. When I moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the
real estate professionals was the lack of affordable housing, so even this cannot be
considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at least.
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique
character of the town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of
tourists look forward to visiting Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any
rezoning will negatively affect the beauty and character and ecology of the area thus
effecting the desirability of future tourism business. No one wants this to happen as
tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the bills). Don't allow this unattended
consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING
REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 694
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: 685 Peakview rezoning application
1 message
Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:32 AM
To: "markandrewhewitt@aol.com" <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>
Thank you for your email. We cannot comment at this time due to quasi judicial reasons:
Occasionally, the Town Board acts in an adjudicatory, or “quasi-judicial”, manner. In that capacity, the
Town Board operates, not as a legislature, but more like a court. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the
Town Board is not setting new policy, but applying the standards in an existing ordinance, statute or
regulation to facts presented at a hearing, similar as to how a judge would act. In other words, much
like a court would at a trial, the Town Board is applying the law to the facts gathered at a public
hearing to arrive at its decision.
Thank you for understanding.
Marie
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:02 PM markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com> wrote:
Town of Estes Park Leadership,
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the citizens in our town.
My name is Mark Hewitt. I have lived in Estes Park for 24 years and over that time have
operated three businesses. One of those businesses is Mile Hi Realty Inc, operating in Colorado
for over forty years, a second is Hewitt Property Management LLC, providing affordable long
term rentals. I have been a resident of Colorado since 1969, after completing four years of
military service in the Air Force. As a result I am very familiar with the State of Colorado and its
demographics, as well as Real Estate laws.
I moved to Estes Park in 1999 because of the beauty of the area and the appeal of a quaint
small town. Actually, the desire to live in Estes Park came about when my mother would come
from New York state to visit us in Broomfield. As soon as the suitcase was unpacked she would
announce "Can we go to Estes Park". After packing a picnic lunch and completing the 1 1/4 hour
drive, my mom would get out of the car and look all around and say "I know this is just what
heaven is going to be like!" This has stuck with our family for many years.
I write to bring to your attention the unwanted and destructive and perhaps illegal request to
rezone 685 Peakview. This property was originally platted out of the Dannels family holdings in
order to "maintain the aesthetic values of a mountain setting". Once a rezoning is approved
there is no going back after infrastructure and improvements have been put in place. The
dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning are many. Therefore, this would be a big mistake with
no benefit for the affected areas, the citizens of Estes Park, or the town of Estes Park. I would
like to point out just three reasons of the dangers and risks of allowing this rezoning of 685
Peakview.
This rezoning would not provide any affordable, attainable, or work force housing, nor even
reasonable housing for anyone in Estes! Taking into account the prevailing land cost and the
current $400/sq ft construction cost, the final value of a 1,500 sq ft home built under this rezoning
at 685 Peakview would be $750 to $800,000. A buyer would need $150,000 cash for down
payment, plus $136,000 of debt free annual income. This is well above any employee in EstesPage 695
and in all likelihood would be purchased by an out of town buyer because they could get
extremely high monthly rental income. This would only be yet another detriment to affordable
housing.
A code requirement for any rezoning is that there must be changes in the areas affected.
The areas affected are only those adjoining properties and properties in close proximity to the
subject property, not just any location anywhere in town, as in the opinion of the town attorney.
When I moved to town in 1999 the discussion among the real estate professionals was the lack
of affordable housing, so even this cannot be considered a change, as it existed 24 years ago at
least.
My reason for moving here was the beauty of the Estes area and the unique character of
the town of Estes Park. These are the same reasons that thousands of tourists look forward to
visiting Estes Park every year. Looking at the future, any rezoning will negatively affect the
beauty and character and ecology of the area thus effecting the desirability of future tourism
business. No one wants this to happen as tourism is our only economic engine (it pays the
bills). Don't allow this unattended consequence to impact the future of our town. DO NOT
APPROVE THIS REZONING REQUEST!
Thank you for your time, Mark Hewitt
Page 696
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 697
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 698
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 699
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 700
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 701
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 702
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 703
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:52 AM
To: wkoening@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people have
signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 704
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:31 AM
To: Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com>
Thank you for your email. We cannot comment at this time due to quasi judicial reasons:
Occasionally, the Town Board acts in an adjudicatory, or “quasi-judicial”, manner. In that capacity, the Town Board
operates, not as a legislature, but more like a court. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the Town Board is not setting new
policy, but applying the standards in an existing ordinance, statute or regulation to facts presented at a hearing, similar as
to how a judge would act. In other words, much like a court would at a trial, the Town Board is applying the law to the facts
gathered at a public hearing to arrive at its decision.
Thank you for understanding.
Marie
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:53 AM Christann Higley <christannhigley@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
My question to you regarding the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive is this: Why would you vote in favor of rezoning?
The plan to build three houses will not increase the availability of housing in Estes Park by any measurable amount.
The current cost per square foot to build in Estes Park will certainly mean that the three houses will not be "affordable
housing".
The houses will not be workforce housing.
The residents who live in the neighborhood are overwhelmingly against the plan.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who do not live nearby also do not want the lot rezoned. Look how many people
have signed the PEP petition.
So...cui bono? Who will benefit from this rezoning? The answer is only one person -- the developer.
Please do not vote in favor of rezoning 685 Peak View. Leave the property as minimum one acre lots. The
owner/developer can sell the lots or build on them himself and still make a substantial profit. That way everyone wins.
Sincerely,
Christann Higley
751 Longs Drive
Estes Park CO
Page 705
Page 706
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: 685 Peak View
1 message
Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:33 AM
To: RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>
Thank you for your email. We cannot comment at this time due to quasi judicial reasons:
Occasionally, the Town Board acts in an adjudicatory, or “quasi-judicial”, manner. In that capacity, the
Town Board operates, not as a legislature, but more like a court. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the
Town Board is not setting new policy, but applying the standards in an existing ordinance, statute or
regulation to facts presented at a hearing, similar as to how a judge would act. In other words, much
like a court would at a trial, the Town Board is applying the law to the facts gathered at a public
hearing to arrive at its decision.
Thank you for understanding.
Marie
On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 8:54 AM RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net> wrote:
When first presented by the applicant, we were told this property would be workforce affordable
housing. Quote: "This is what the town wants". This is no longer the case. Please deny this
new application. Thank you. Ronald Houlette
Page 707
Page 708
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:34 AM
To: Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>
Thank you for your email. We cannot comment at this time due to quasi judicial reasons:
Occasionally, the Town Board acts in an adjudicatory, or “quasi-judicial”, manner. In that capacity, the
Town Board operates, not as a legislature, but more like a court. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the
Town Board is not setting new policy, but applying the standards in an existing ordinance, statute or
regulation to facts presented at a hearing, similar as to how a judge would act. In other words, much
like a court would at a trial, the Town Board is applying the law to the facts gathered at a public
hearing to arrive at its decision.
Thank you for understanding.
Marie
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:47 AM Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net> wrote:
Page 709
Page 710
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 711
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 712
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 713
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 714
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 715
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 716
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 717
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:15 PM
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx
1641K
Page 718
September 21st, 2023
Estes Park Board of Trustees
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org,
Re: Opposition to Peak View Rezoning
Dear Valued Trustees:
While I am not directly affected by the Peak View rezoning issue, currently being considered for Trustee
approval, I am among the many Estes Park residents who are concerned about its implications. I now
own and live in a home that was built by my great uncle (Alvin Hall) in 1919, situated on 1.25 acres along
the West Wonderview corridor. I inherited this home and decided to retire here, based on the general
assumption that Estes would maintain its attractive open spaces and low-density housing.
Having lived and worked in Germany for some 7 years, I know what it is like to be packed into multiple
6-story apartment buildings, row houses, and condominiums. Open space housing is in very short supply
anywhere in Europe and, hence, it is a unique and valuable attribute found only in America. When flying
over our continent, it is clear we have nothing but open space, particularly in Western States.
Thus, I am confused by what is driving this requirement for high-density housing. Clearly this is being
pushed by Progressives at both Federal, State, and local levels, but why? And why should I be obliged to
go along with it? I attempted to find answers. First, I attended the proposed development plan
presentation at the Rec Center where I was told not to worry, that rezoning was not an issue. Then I
attended both planning commission meetings, where commissioners blatantly ignored concerns from
dozens of Peak View residents. To them, after all, this was not a big deal: only 3 houses to be built on
half acre plots. But it is a big deal. It will set the standard and serve as a precedent for rezoning all over
town.
Now rezoning is before the Trustees. If you were to poll Estes residents, you would find overwhelming
opposition to it (based upon PEPs 1700+ petition signatures). I would like to think that we still have in
America, some semblance of representative government and that you will vote against any zoning
change in Peak View.
Respectfully Yours,
Dr. Carl E. Cross, PhD
Staff Scientist, Los Alamos Nat. Lab. (retired)
740 W. Wonderview Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-646-1906 cecross53@gmail.com
cc: PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com, wkoenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
Page 719
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:41 PM
To: Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>
I read your email. Thank you.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 21, 2023, at 4:19 PM, Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>
Subject: Peak View Rezoning
Date: September 21, 2023 at 4:15:54 PM MDT
To: mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org,
bmacalpine@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: wkokenig@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org,
PreserveEstesPark@gmail.com
<Opposition to Peak View Rezoning.docx>
Page 720
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Private Property Rights
1 message
Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand the
importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked diligently to
contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and other
community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the Board to protect
the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 721
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Private Property Rights
1 message
Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand the
importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked diligently to
contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and other
community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the Board to protect
the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 722
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Private Property Rights
1 message
Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand the
importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked diligently to
contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and other
community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the Board to protect
the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 723
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Private Property Rights
1 message
Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand the
importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked diligently to
contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and other
community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the Board to protect
the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 724
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Private Property Rights
1 message
Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand the
importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked diligently to
contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and other
community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the Board to protect
the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 725
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Private Property Rights
1 message
Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand the
importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked diligently to
contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and other
community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the Board to protect
the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 726
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Private Property Rights
1 message
Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:25 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand the
importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked diligently to
contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and other
community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the Board to protect
the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 727
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Private Property Rights
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:01 PM
To: Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com>
Hello Pam,
I have read your note.
Sincerely,
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 22, 2023, at 11:25 AM, Pam Grube <pamgrube@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am a retiree who has chosen to spend my golden years in Estes Park. I understand
the importance of a welcoming and supportive community. The Grigsbys have worked
diligently to contribute to the town's vibrancy and have been unfairly burdened by these
new regulations.
I urge the town officials to reconsider the impact of these regulations on retirees and
other community members who have invested their time and resources here. I urge the
Board to protect the rights and interests of all residents, young and old.
Pam Grube
Estes Park, CO
Sent from my iPad
Page 728
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Peak View Rezoning
1 message
Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 11:27 AM
To: Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com>
Thank you for your email. We cannot comment at this time due to quasi judicial reasons:
Occasionally, the Town Board acts in an adjudicatory, or “quasi-judicial”, manner. In that capacity, the
Town Board operates, not as a legislature, but more like a court. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the
Town Board is not setting new policy, but applying the standards in an existing ordinance, statute or
regulation to facts presented at a hearing, similar as to how a judge would act. In other words, much
like a court would at a trial, the Town Board is applying the law to the facts gathered at a public
hearing to arrive at its decision.
Thank you for understanding.
Marie
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:16 PM Carl Cross <cecross53@gmail.com> wrote:
Comments submitted to the Town Board by 09-26-2023
Page 729
Page 730
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 1:24 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby
Hazelton <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned cronyism to
allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-neighborhood
without consideration for the rights of neighbors. I refer you to the
petitions signed by over 1,600 such neighbors who also oppose
this course of action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo development
altogether--he can make plenty of money by building on one acre
lots per the existing zoning. However, he has been very laissez-
faire about scheduling neighborhood meetings, staking the
property, and posting public notices in the newspaper. At the first
neighborhood meeting he said, "This is what the town wants,"
and intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so many
others have sadly said. I believe that you, our elected officials,
Page 731
will listen to your citizens and make the decision to deny this
rezoning that is rooted in false pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to the town
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 732
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 1:24 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby
Hazelton <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned cronyism to
allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-neighborhood
without consideration for the rights of neighbors. I refer you to the
petitions signed by over 1,600 such neighbors who also oppose
this course of action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo development
altogether--he can make plenty of money by building on one acre
lots per the existing zoning. However, he has been very laissez-
faire about scheduling neighborhood meetings, staking the
property, and posting public notices in the newspaper. At the first
neighborhood meeting he said, "This is what the town wants,"
and intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so many
others have sadly said. I believe that you, our elected officials,
Page 733
will listen to your citizens and make the decision to deny this
rezoning that is rooted in false pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to the town
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 734
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 1:24 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby
Hazelton <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned cronyism to
allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-neighborhood
without consideration for the rights of neighbors. I refer you to the
petitions signed by over 1,600 such neighbors who also oppose
this course of action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo development
altogether--he can make plenty of money by building on one acre
lots per the existing zoning. However, he has been very laissez-
faire about scheduling neighborhood meetings, staking the
property, and posting public notices in the newspaper. At the first
neighborhood meeting he said, "This is what the town wants,"
and intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so many
others have sadly said. I believe that you, our elected officials,
Page 735
will listen to your citizens and make the decision to deny this
rezoning that is rooted in false pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to the town
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 736
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 1:24 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby
Hazelton <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned cronyism to
allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-neighborhood
without consideration for the rights of neighbors. I refer you to the
petitions signed by over 1,600 such neighbors who also oppose
this course of action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo development
altogether--he can make plenty of money by building on one acre
lots per the existing zoning. However, he has been very laissez-
faire about scheduling neighborhood meetings, staking the
property, and posting public notices in the newspaper. At the first
neighborhood meeting he said, "This is what the town wants,"
and intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so many
others have sadly said. I believe that you, our elected officials,
Page 737
will listen to your citizens and make the decision to deny this
rezoning that is rooted in false pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to the town
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 738
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 1:24 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby
Hazelton <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned cronyism to
allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-neighborhood
without consideration for the rights of neighbors. I refer you to the
petitions signed by over 1,600 such neighbors who also oppose
this course of action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo development
altogether--he can make plenty of money by building on one acre
lots per the existing zoning. However, he has been very laissez-
faire about scheduling neighborhood meetings, staking the
property, and posting public notices in the newspaper. At the first
neighborhood meeting he said, "This is what the town wants,"
and intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so many
others have sadly said. I believe that you, our elected officials,
Page 739
will listen to your citizens and make the decision to deny this
rezoning that is rooted in false pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to the town
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 740
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 1:24 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby
Hazelton <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned cronyism to
allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-neighborhood
without consideration for the rights of neighbors. I refer you to the
petitions signed by over 1,600 such neighbors who also oppose
this course of action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo development
altogether--he can make plenty of money by building on one acre
lots per the existing zoning. However, he has been very laissez-
faire about scheduling neighborhood meetings, staking the
property, and posting public notices in the newspaper. At the first
neighborhood meeting he said, "This is what the town wants,"
and intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so many
others have sadly said. I believe that you, our elected officials,
Page 741
will listen to your citizens and make the decision to deny this
rezoning that is rooted in false pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to the town
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 742
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 1:24 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby
Hazelton <khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned cronyism to
allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-neighborhood
without consideration for the rights of neighbors. I refer you to the
petitions signed by over 1,600 such neighbors who also oppose
this course of action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo development
altogether--he can make plenty of money by building on one acre
lots per the existing zoning. However, he has been very laissez-
faire about scheduling neighborhood meetings, staking the
property, and posting public notices in the newspaper. At the first
neighborhood meeting he said, "This is what the town wants,"
and intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so many
others have sadly said. I believe that you, our elected officials,
Page 743
will listen to your citizens and make the decision to deny this
rezoning that is rooted in false pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to the town
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 744
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 2:25 PM
To: Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>
I have received your email and read your comments.
Mayor Koenig.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 23, 2023, at 1:25 PM, Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees,
I am very opposed to rezoning the property at 685 Peak
View.
Why?
Because this is NOT workforce housing.
And this is NOT affordable housing.
So, what is this?
This is one man who expected old-fashioned
cronyism to allow him to develop a neighborhood-within-a-
neighborhood without consideration for the rights of
neighbors. I refer you to the petitions signed by over
1,600 such neighbors who also oppose this course of
action.
I am not asking that the developer forgo
development altogether--he can make plenty of money by
building on one acre lots per the existing zoning.
However, he has been very laissez-faire about scheduling
Page 745
neighborhood meetings, staking the property, and posting
public notices in the newspaper. At the first neighborhood
meeting he said, "This is what the town wants," and
intimated that it was a done deal.
I sincerely believe that it is not a done deal, like so
many others have sadly said. I believe that you, our
elected officials, will listen to your citizens and make the
decision to deny this rezoning that is rooted in false
pretenses.
Thank you for your attention and for your service to
the town and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Tamara Scace
606 Longs Drive
Page 746
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Don Smith <doncsmith@icloud.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
My wife Jan Lueker Smith and I purchased a home in 2022 that happens to be close to the parcel at 685 Peak View
Drive.
One of our reasons for purchasing the property at 1435 Prospect Mountain Road was the zoning in the area that
restricted building to large lots. While the parcel at 685 Peak View was not, of course, on our mind at the time of our
purchase, it very definitely is on our mind now.
We, and essentially the entire neighborhood and town residents insofar as we are aware, opposes the change in zoning
for 685. It appears to be a text-book case of spot zoning that will benefit one person while burdening the entire
neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
The property’s owner must have been well aware of the existing zoning when he purchased the property, but no sooner
had he completed the purchase than he sought a zoning change. Had he taken the time to ask those in the
neighborhood about the project, he would have discovered that the project not only lacked support but would (and has)
engender overwhelming objection.
The property’s owner has effectively tried one trial balloon proposal after another in his tireless effort to benefit himself
from his purchase. However, what he has failed to do is convince anyone that his efforts are somehow to the benefit of
the neighborhood and the town at large.
Rezoning should not be a way for anyone to shore up what might have been a poor business decision, and he should not
be looking to the trustees to bail him out on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Smith and Jan Lueker Smith
1435 Prospect Mountain Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 747
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Don Smith <doncsmith@icloud.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
My wife Jan Lueker Smith and I purchased a home in 2022 that happens to be close to the parcel at 685 Peak View
Drive.
One of our reasons for purchasing the property at 1435 Prospect Mountain Road was the zoning in the area that
restricted building to large lots. While the parcel at 685 Peak View was not, of course, on our mind at the time of our
purchase, it very definitely is on our mind now.
We, and essentially the entire neighborhood and town residents insofar as we are aware, opposes the change in zoning
for 685. It appears to be a text-book case of spot zoning that will benefit one person while burdening the entire
neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
The property’s owner must have been well aware of the existing zoning when he purchased the property, but no sooner
had he completed the purchase than he sought a zoning change. Had he taken the time to ask those in the
neighborhood about the project, he would have discovered that the project not only lacked support but would (and has)
engender overwhelming objection.
The property’s owner has effectively tried one trial balloon proposal after another in his tireless effort to benefit himself
from his purchase. However, what he has failed to do is convince anyone that his efforts are somehow to the benefit of
the neighborhood and the town at large.
Rezoning should not be a way for anyone to shore up what might have been a poor business decision, and he should not
be looking to the trustees to bail him out on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Smith and Jan Lueker Smith
1435 Prospect Mountain Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 748
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Don Smith <doncsmith@icloud.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
My wife Jan Lueker Smith and I purchased a home in 2022 that happens to be close to the parcel at 685 Peak View
Drive.
One of our reasons for purchasing the property at 1435 Prospect Mountain Road was the zoning in the area that
restricted building to large lots. While the parcel at 685 Peak View was not, of course, on our mind at the time of our
purchase, it very definitely is on our mind now.
We, and essentially the entire neighborhood and town residents insofar as we are aware, opposes the change in zoning
for 685. It appears to be a text-book case of spot zoning that will benefit one person while burdening the entire
neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
The property’s owner must have been well aware of the existing zoning when he purchased the property, but no sooner
had he completed the purchase than he sought a zoning change. Had he taken the time to ask those in the
neighborhood about the project, he would have discovered that the project not only lacked support but would (and has)
engender overwhelming objection.
The property’s owner has effectively tried one trial balloon proposal after another in his tireless effort to benefit himself
from his purchase. However, what he has failed to do is convince anyone that his efforts are somehow to the benefit of
the neighborhood and the town at large.
Rezoning should not be a way for anyone to shore up what might have been a poor business decision, and he should not
be looking to the trustees to bail him out on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Smith and Jan Lueker Smith
1435 Prospect Mountain Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 749
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Don Smith <doncsmith@icloud.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
My wife Jan Lueker Smith and I purchased a home in 2022 that happens to be close to the parcel at 685 Peak View
Drive.
One of our reasons for purchasing the property at 1435 Prospect Mountain Road was the zoning in the area that
restricted building to large lots. While the parcel at 685 Peak View was not, of course, on our mind at the time of our
purchase, it very definitely is on our mind now.
We, and essentially the entire neighborhood and town residents insofar as we are aware, opposes the change in zoning
for 685. It appears to be a text-book case of spot zoning that will benefit one person while burdening the entire
neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
The property’s owner must have been well aware of the existing zoning when he purchased the property, but no sooner
had he completed the purchase than he sought a zoning change. Had he taken the time to ask those in the
neighborhood about the project, he would have discovered that the project not only lacked support but would (and has)
engender overwhelming objection.
The property’s owner has effectively tried one trial balloon proposal after another in his tireless effort to benefit himself
from his purchase. However, what he has failed to do is convince anyone that his efforts are somehow to the benefit of
the neighborhood and the town at large.
Rezoning should not be a way for anyone to shore up what might have been a poor business decision, and he should not
be looking to the trustees to bail him out on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Smith and Jan Lueker Smith
1435 Prospect Mountain Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 750
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Don Smith <doncsmith@icloud.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
My wife Jan Lueker Smith and I purchased a home in 2022 that happens to be close to the parcel at 685 Peak View
Drive.
One of our reasons for purchasing the property at 1435 Prospect Mountain Road was the zoning in the area that
restricted building to large lots. While the parcel at 685 Peak View was not, of course, on our mind at the time of our
purchase, it very definitely is on our mind now.
We, and essentially the entire neighborhood and town residents insofar as we are aware, opposes the change in zoning
for 685. It appears to be a text-book case of spot zoning that will benefit one person while burdening the entire
neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
The property’s owner must have been well aware of the existing zoning when he purchased the property, but no sooner
had he completed the purchase than he sought a zoning change. Had he taken the time to ask those in the
neighborhood about the project, he would have discovered that the project not only lacked support but would (and has)
engender overwhelming objection.
The property’s owner has effectively tried one trial balloon proposal after another in his tireless effort to benefit himself
from his purchase. However, what he has failed to do is convince anyone that his efforts are somehow to the benefit of
the neighborhood and the town at large.
Rezoning should not be a way for anyone to shore up what might have been a poor business decision, and he should not
be looking to the trustees to bail him out on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Smith and Jan Lueker Smith
1435 Prospect Mountain Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 751
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Don Smith <doncsmith@icloud.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
My wife Jan Lueker Smith and I purchased a home in 2022 that happens to be close to the parcel at 685 Peak View
Drive.
One of our reasons for purchasing the property at 1435 Prospect Mountain Road was the zoning in the area that
restricted building to large lots. While the parcel at 685 Peak View was not, of course, on our mind at the time of our
purchase, it very definitely is on our mind now.
We, and essentially the entire neighborhood and town residents insofar as we are aware, opposes the change in zoning
for 685. It appears to be a text-book case of spot zoning that will benefit one person while burdening the entire
neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
The property’s owner must have been well aware of the existing zoning when he purchased the property, but no sooner
had he completed the purchase than he sought a zoning change. Had he taken the time to ask those in the
neighborhood about the project, he would have discovered that the project not only lacked support but would (and has)
engender overwhelming objection.
The property’s owner has effectively tried one trial balloon proposal after another in his tireless effort to benefit himself
from his purchase. However, what he has failed to do is convince anyone that his efforts are somehow to the benefit of
the neighborhood and the town at large.
Rezoning should not be a way for anyone to shore up what might have been a poor business decision, and he should not
be looking to the trustees to bail him out on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Smith and Jan Lueker Smith
1435 Prospect Mountain Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 752
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Don Smith <doncsmith@icloud.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
"mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org"
<franklancaster@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org"
<cyounglund@estes.org>, Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig and Trustees:
My wife Jan Lueker Smith and I purchased a home in 2022 that happens to be close to the parcel at 685 Peak View
Drive.
One of our reasons for purchasing the property at 1435 Prospect Mountain Road was the zoning in the area that
restricted building to large lots. While the parcel at 685 Peak View was not, of course, on our mind at the time of our
purchase, it very definitely is on our mind now.
We, and essentially the entire neighborhood and town residents insofar as we are aware, opposes the change in zoning
for 685. It appears to be a text-book case of spot zoning that will benefit one person while burdening the entire
neighborhood with increased traffic, noise, and congestion.
The property’s owner must have been well aware of the existing zoning when he purchased the property, but no sooner
had he completed the purchase than he sought a zoning change. Had he taken the time to ask those in the
neighborhood about the project, he would have discovered that the project not only lacked support but would (and has)
engender overwhelming objection.
The property’s owner has effectively tried one trial balloon proposal after another in his tireless effort to benefit himself
from his purchase. However, what he has failed to do is convince anyone that his efforts are somehow to the benefit of
the neighborhood and the town at large.
Rezoning should not be a way for anyone to shore up what might have been a poor business decision, and he should not
be looking to the trustees to bail him out on this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Smith and Jan Lueker Smith
1435 Prospect Mountain Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Page 753
Page 754
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning, Subdivision applications, 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Honorable Town Trustees:
My related comments below:
By copy of this email, I am asking the Town Clerk to include these comment in the public record for the above.
Thanks and Regards, …
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mtn Rd
Estes Park, CO
Rezoning 685 Peak View.docx
11K
Page 755
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning, Subdivision applications, 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Honorable Town Trustees:
My related comments below:
By copy of this email, I am asking the Town Clerk to include these comment in the public record for the above.
Thanks and Regards, …
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mtn Rd
Estes Park, CO
Rezoning 685 Peak View.docx
11K
Page 756
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning, Subdivision applications, 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Honorable Town Trustees:
My related comments below:
By copy of this email, I am asking the Town Clerk to include these comment in the public record for the above.
Thanks and Regards, …
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mtn Rd
Estes Park, CO
Rezoning 685 Peak View.docx
11K
Page 757
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning, Subdivision applications, 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Honorable Town Trustees:
My related comments below:
By copy of this email, I am asking the Town Clerk to include these comment in the public record for the above.
Thanks and Regards, …
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mtn Rd
Estes Park, CO
Rezoning 685 Peak View.docx
11K
Page 758
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning, Subdivision applications, 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Honorable Town Trustees:
My related comments below:
By copy of this email, I am asking the Town Clerk to include these comment in the public record for the above.
Thanks and Regards, …
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mtn Rd
Estes Park, CO
Rezoning 685 Peak View.docx
11K
Page 759
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning, Subdivision applications, 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Honorable Town Trustees:
My related comments below:
By copy of this email, I am asking the Town Clerk to include these comment in the public record for the above.
Thanks and Regards, …
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mtn Rd
Estes Park, CO
Rezoning 685 Peak View.docx
11K
Page 760
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Rezoning, Subdivision applications, 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:24 AM
To: "Wendy (Koenig) Schuett" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>,
mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
cyounglund@estes.org
Cc: Jackie Williamson <jwilliamson@estes.org>
Honorable Town Trustees:
My related comments below:
By copy of this email, I am asking the Town Clerk to include these comment in the public record for the above.
Thanks and Regards, …
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mtn Rd
Estes Park, CO
Rezoning 685 Peak View.docx
11K
Page 761
9.24.23
To:
Town of Estes Park, Honorable Mayor and Honorable Trustees
From:
Rex Poggenpohl
1440 Prospect Mountain Road, Estes Park
Re:
Zoning, Rezoning; and current applications for 685 Peak View
Drive
Honorable elected Officials:
Thank you for service to the community and conscientious
deliberations on local Land Use issues.
I apologize for this last minute letter, but I have an opportunity that
takes me out of town and unable to speak at your upcoming
meeting.
While I have a Degree in Architecture and City/Regional Planning,
and have been an on/off member of national professional planing
organizations since 1970; I should note that I have never been a
practicing staff planner. However, much of my professional career
has been presenting domestic or international land use or
development projects to elected officials and I have held a
number of government appointments in land use related
responsibilities since 1979. Correspondingly, these are my
personal comments as a neighboring resident, and do not
represent the views of any group, where I hold an appointed
position.
Background on the importance of Zoning:
Page 762
The growth of the U.S. industry and economy after the Industrial
Revolution resulted in property rights battles and following zoning
ordinances in major cities like Los Angeles and New York in the
early 1900’s. Consequently, in 1922 a remarkably capable
national committee was formed to establish important guidelines
for the Land Use issue of Zoning. The resulting federal State
Zoning Enabling Act and its revisions, set down monumental
policies for all States to precisely grant carefully formed, specific
responsibilities and procedures in Zoning matters to their
Counties and Towns on behalf of the local residents and property
owners, with resulting policies and regulations that would always
require extensive public input. While land development has been
an important economic process throughout USA history, it
changes the use and character of land and needs these
protections.
Property Zoning has long been the most important element in
providing this protection and has been rigorously upheld as such
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Zoning has thus been the long time
consistent setting where existing or prospective property owners
can rely on certain, defined expectations about the development
of their property and those properties surrounding them.
Consequently, changes to existing residential Zoning by denser
residential rezoning has been generally considered questionable,
if not inappropriate. What the planning professionals call “spot
zoning” is even less acceptable. Spot zoning is where a single
property is rezoned to the benefit of the particular owner, while the
surrounding property owners are not able to have similar benefits
from their existing zoning. Spot zoning has been found an
unacceptable bastardization of zoning principles and illegal over
and over again in the appropriate courts of Land Use law.
Common to most rationalizations for rezoning is a “change in
conditions”. Courts have generally determined that this means
permanent physical changes in the area of the rezoning request.
Page 763
In my 16 years of following land use issues here, local housing
costs have always been a challenge for most of the workforce;
nothing new. Another common rationale for rezoning is that the
change in zoning will provide a clear, and needed benefit to, and
desired by property owners in the vicinity of proposed rezoning.
Considerable resident opposition opposes such rezoning.
There is no question that land use regulations are always needed
for proper balance of community interests to individual property
rights; and to protect the neighborhood, neighbors and property
values; but denser residential rezoning adjacent to established
residential areas is very rarely appropriate.
Rezoning in Estes Park:
It appears that the local Planning staff (without the experience of
living here in our community), has recently recommended
rezoning as a solution to workforce housing. This may be due to
questionable thinking that community planners can solve most
socio-economical problems, when the planners have no
education and credentials of a social or economic scientist.
Rezoning existing residential properties to higher densities will not
impact our workforce housing problem in a significant or sensible
manor.
Separately, the existing rezoning process here, seems somewhat
flawed. Neighborhood resident concerns about: traffic, surface
water drainage, wildlife movement, ridge line views, deed
restrictions, etc., should be technically studied and considered in
any rezoning proposal. While some of this has been addressed in
the pending applications, the current process doesn’t seem to
require covering such important topics, until after rezoning and
subdivision requests have been approved. Consequently, I urge
the Town to review the existing process and if as I suspect, to
revise the formal rezoning process to include consideration of
these elements at the earlier stages.
Page 764
Rezoning application for 685 Peak View Drive:
Rezoning per this request is inappropriate, in that it requests a
zoning of allowing 2 homes per acre on a property surrounded on
three sides with an existing zoning of one home per acre, (spot
zoning?). And, with current construction costs, it would not
address the problem of affordable workforce housing at all.
Additionally, rezoning of this property would set a very
questionable precedent for future rezoning and higher densities of
any residential properties.
Planning staff seems to be defending their questionable proposal
for higher density residential rezoning with heavily biased support
of these applications, in contrast to community response. Staff
findings: this rezoning request is “Compatible and consistent with
the Comp Plan”?, when the Comp Plan mentions that the existing,
desirable area character includes quiet single family
neighborhoods of low density.
While increased housing prices here do make it more difficult for
businesses to expand and hire more employees, it is not the
responsibility of existing property owners to accept nearby
rezoning of higher densities to address this housing problem. And
an impressive number of nearby property owners have voiced
their opposition to this rezoning in their neighborhood.
Local officials can cause significant damage to our community,
many existing property owners, and constituents; by encouraging
such residential rezoning to increased densities. A more sensible
approach is to encourage prospective employees to look at more
affordable nearby communities such as: Glen Haven, Pinewood
Springs and Allenspark. Also, developing transportation from the
municipalities along the I-25 corridor seems important to the
immediate and long term need for employees here. Additionally,
attracting and developing new year round businesses, including
Page 765
high tech firms with higher salaries, seems essential to the long
term economic health of our community and employees that can
afford to live here.
This property should remain zoned for one home per acre, just as
most of the surrounding properties are zoned and already
developed as such; protecting the established expectations of
nearby property owners. How would you like to see a property
next to, or near your home, rezoned to a higher density, when you
expected your surroundings to honor the existing, long standing
zoning and associated density?
In closing, thanks for your consideration on this important matter.
Very Sincerely,
Rex Poggenpohl
American Planning Association
Chair, Estes Valley Planning Advisory Committee
Larimer County, Board of Appeals
Former Estes Valley Planning Commissioner
Former Chair, Estes Valley, Board of Adjustment
Former Vice-Chair, Estes Park, Parks Advisory Board
-
Page 766
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 767
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 768
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 769
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 770
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 771
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 772
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 773
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 774
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 775
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 776
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 777
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 778
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Kirby Hazelton
<khazelton@estes.org>, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have literally
bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with the very
real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out that parcel
with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which is required
by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole or
in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not about
that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation to
Page 779
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate and
affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth
and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and increasing
density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan discusses
increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises trying to
maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in zoning,
refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We are
asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s recommendation
and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply the criteria, and
decide. In the end we hope you will see that the required criteria are, in
fact, not met and will deny the request to rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 780
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to Rezone 685 Peak View
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:51 AM
To: Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>
I received your email and read it.
Mayor
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:12 AM Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Town of Estes Park Decision Makers,
I’m writing again in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak
View by Mr. Frank Theis.
The current zoning is for 1-acre lots, and Mr. Theis proposes to change
that to a higher density. This change, if approved, would change the
nature of the neighborhood forever — a long-term impact from an
unnecessary and inappropriate proposed change.
It’s unnecessary because the current long-standing, and recently
reaffirmed, zoning is what the neighborhood and planners have
literally bought into for a long time. It also does nothing to help with
the very real problem of workforce/affordable housing. Building out
that parcel with the current 1-acre zoning fits the neighborhood, which
is required by our code.
It’s inappropriate because the criteria for rezoning are not met. The
planning department and planning commission believed that they were
met, but it’s not a logical conclusion given the facts. The basis for the
planning department’s recommendation to approve is based in whole
or in part on workforce/affordable housing, and this proposal is not
about that type of housing.
Criteria #1 is there must be a change in conditions. One of the main
points that the planning staff used to support their recommendation toPage 781
approve is that there is a change in conditions outside the immediate
and affected area. But that does not support this proposal, and therefore
Criteria #1 is not met — there are no changes in the area affected.
Criteria #2 requires the plan be “compatible and consistent with the
policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing
growth and development patterns.” It is zoned for 1-acre lots, and
increasing density is not “compatible and consistent.” Yes, the Plan
discusses increased density, but not everywhere. The Plan also advises
trying to maintain the character of neighborhoods.
We also must use caution to not rely too much on the Plan because it is
not regulatory. The regulatory aspect comes from our Code. We
absolutely must meet code requirements to approve a change in
zoning, refuting any basis for approval related to the Plan.
What the citizens of Estes Park are asking for is not complicated. We
are asking you to be skeptical about the planning staff’s
recommendation and subsequent Planning Commission decision, apply
the criteria, and decide. In the end we hope you will see that the
required criteria are, in fact, not met and will deny the request to
rezone this parcel.
Please listen to the citizens.
Dan Scace
606 Longs Drive
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Dan Scace
860-912-5344 (Cell)
970-480-1819 (Home)
Be a Good Wingman
Page 782
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 783
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 784
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 785
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 786
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 787
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 788
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:47 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>,
khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, TownClerk@estes.org
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if another
meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making those
exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of adjacent
property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development Department to
provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the homeowners
to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in this
request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the property
owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says that
he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an example, at
various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses, then that he
might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been vague about that,
too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would provide
any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 789
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Neighborhood meeting report
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:50 AM
To: Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>
I have received and read your email. Mayor
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:48 AM Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com> wrote:
There was another neighborhood meeting last Friday about the proposed development at 685 Peak View. This meeting
was the replacement for the previously called meeting because the developer once again had failed to follow the rules
about public notification of the meeting.
The presence of the developer was a surprise. At the last neighborhood meeting he had adamantly stated that if
another meeting had to be held that he would not attend.
He was his usual combative and vague self. He denied having said things when there are recordings of him making
those exact statements. Although the neighborhood meeting was intended for the developer to answer questions of
adjacent property owners, the developer relied on the staff member from the Town's Community Development
Department to provide answers.
There was a brief mention of the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units on the property. All attempts by the
homeowners to get any clarification on this topic were simply ignored.
The developer mentioned that he would discuss his possible plans for the major part of the property (not included in
this request) with the people who purchased the first three lots. He refused to share any of that information with the
property owners at the meeting.
These are just some of the examples of the developer's behavior during all of the meetings I have attended.
This has been a constant thread in all of the neighborhood meetings. He denies saying things that he said. He says
that he has no idea what he will do with the part of the parcel not covered by the current rezoning request. As an
example, at various times he has said that he would just sell lots, then he has said that he might build some houses,
then that he might build one house. He has stated that there would be an HOA for his development, but then been
vague about that, too.
The only person who will benefit if this parcel is rezoned is the developer. There is nothing in his plans that would
provide any workforce or affordable or attainable housing. This is an example of spot zoning at its worst.
Please deny this application, and protect the Estes Park that we all love.
Thank you .
Laura Rustin
555B Devon Drive
Estes Park, Co 80517
Page 790
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 791
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 792
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 793
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 794
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 795
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 796
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org,
franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands including
over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include legality,
morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect Mountain
Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include setbacks, arterial
streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it since the day of its
inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning other than for
individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the respectability and
future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre and should have no
expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 797
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:34 PM
To: baderl@comcast.net
I have read your email.
Mayor Koenig
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:21 PM <baderl@comcast.net> wrote:
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands
including over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include
legality, morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect
Mountain Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include
setbacks, arterial streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it
since the day of its inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for rezoning
other than for individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage to the
respectability and future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per acre
and should have no expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 798
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
RE: Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
1 message
baderl@comcast.net <baderl@comcast.net>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:34 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Dear Mayor Koenig,
Thank you. Of concern is the lack of a plan for 685 Peak View Dr by the developer when so much is at stake. We were
told at the latest neighborhood meeting that there are no plans for the remainder of the property due to current market
conditions. Yet when asked if any compromises to the project were possible the developer responded: “That ship has
sailed, I’m going to do what I have to do.” The developer has been combative and unwilling to discuss any compromise
at all. Future investment in the proposed rezoning and subdivision of this beautiful piece of property in my opinion would
be a risky investment for the town. Current zoning seems a wise decision given how the property is geographical
situated. I’ve lived on this mountain for over 2 years now and I love everything that lives on it. I realize that development
of the property is inevitable but am frightened by the eventual outcome when greed and deceit becomee part of the
picture.
On a personal note I’ve read in the paper that you enjoy hiking. I share that passion and hike as often as I can with the
Thumb being one of my favorites for an after work hike. I thank the Prospect Mountain Townhouse HOA and the town for
that open space and all the people that created and maintain the trail. They do a great job!
Thank you for your consideration,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
From: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 12:34 PM
To: baderl@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Opposition to the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive
I have read your email.
Mayor Koenig
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:21 PM <baderl@comcast.net> wrote:
To all those concerned,
The well documented public opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive now numbers in the thousands
including over 90% of the property owners living within the affected area. Reasons for this popular movement include
legality, morality and environmental sustainability. It is disingenuous of the developer to use the bordering Prospect
Mountain Townhouse Association (PMTA} to legitimize the proposal. Missing from the current proposal include Page 799
setbacks, arterial streets, terracing and a donation of land for open space. This proposal has had a bad smell to it
since the day of its inception and the latest iteration provides no benefits to the general public. Justification for
rezoning other than for individual profit is nonexistent. Approval to rezone the property would result in lasting damage
to the respectability and future of Estes Park. The developer purchased a property appropriately zoned at 1 home per
acre and should have no expectations of being gifted a higher density by our representatives.
Respectfully yours,
Larry Bader
540 Devon Dr
Estes Park
Page 800
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 801
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 802
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 803
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 804
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 805
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 806
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Patrick Martchink
<pmartchink@estes.org>
My name is Terry Rustin. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass it
all the time.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condition in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condition.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condition.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and cottages to house them. There is still a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persisting condition, not a change in condition.
Initially, the developer sought to rezone the entire 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small
lots. After numerous alterations, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on
half-acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one
more house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and
there are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 additional homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre portion of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construction of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and cottages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel until 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
T Rustin
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 807
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:42 PM
To: Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>
Thank you for sending in your comments Terry.
Mayor Koenig
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:11 PM Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com> wrote:
My name is Terry Rus n. I live at 555B Devon Drive, Estes Park.
I oppose the rezoning of 685 Peak View and I urge the Trustees to reject the proposal.
I have followed the controversy around the rezoning of 685 Peak View. I live a few hundred yards from it and pass
it all the me.
The Estes Park Development Code requires that requests for rezoning be based on a change in condi on in the area
of the property. The developer had cited the need for housing in Estes Park as a change in condi on.
The need for housing in Estes Park does not represent a change in condi on.
When F.O. Stanley opened the Stanley Hotel in 1909, he needed dozens of workers, such as housekeepers, cooks,
servers, groundskeepers and carpenters. He built dormitories and co ages to house them. There is s ll a need for
housekeepers, cooks, servers, groundskeepers and carpenters in Estes Park, and a comparable need for workforce
housing for them. This is a persis ng condi on, not a change in condi on.
Ini ally, the developer sought to rezone the en re 7.6 acre property to build more than 30 houses on small lots.
A er numerous altera ons, the developer now requests rezoning only 1.8 acres of the property to build on half-
acre lots instead of one-acre lots. Therefore, rezoning 1.8 acres of 685 Peak View would result in exactly one more
house on the market than if the zoning were not changed. I checked Rockethomes.com just this morning, and there
are 163 homes for sale in Estes Park. Adding two homes or three homes to the market will not change it very
much.
Last month, 31 homes were sold in Estes Park; the median sale price was $682,500. The developer has repeatedly
said that these lots will be offered at market rates. Clearly not workforce housing.
The developer has not shared his plans for the remaining 5.8 acres. The future of that property is not at issue
here. Whether or not 30 addi onal homes are built on that 5.8 acres is irrelevant when the Trustees vote on
rezoning the 1.8 acre parcel. Its future use cannot be considered in making a decision to approve or disapprove of
this rezoning request. The decision on the rezoning of the 1.8 acre por on of the 685 Peak View property must be
based on the provisions of the Development Code as applied only to the 1.8 acre parcel.
The need for affordable housing in Estes Park began in 1907 when F.O. Stanley began construc on of his hotel. He
built the hotel primarily for the benefit of persons suffering, as he had, from tuberculosis. He filled the need for
affordable housing by building dormitories and co ages for his workers; housing was provided for them.
Mr. Stanley was devoted to the welfare of Estes Park and of his employees. He owned the hotel un l 1930, and
never once did the hotel turn a profit. Even when the hotel was less than half full, he never furloughed a single
employee. Every year, he wrote a check to subsidize the salaries of his staff.
This developer is no F.O. Stanley.
I urge the Trustees to vote against this rezoning request.
Thank you for your me and considera on.Page 808
T Rus n
--
Terry A. Rustin, MD
Consultant in Internal Medicine, Addiction Medicine and Psychiatry
Director, Devon Center for the Visual and Expressive Arts
Estes Park, Colorado
Page 809
Page 810
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>,
franklancaster@estes.org, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
Page 811
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed , in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any housing
resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses
built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading of the
“changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed conditions pertaining
to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the need for
affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change”
because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several
decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least
1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021, available
at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-
574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be considered a
new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 812
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>,
franklancaster@estes.org, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
Page 813
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed , in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any housing
resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses
built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading of the
“changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed conditions pertaining
to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the need for
affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change”
because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several
decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least
1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021, available
at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-
574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be considered a
new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 814
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>,
franklancaster@estes.org, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
Page 815
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed , in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any housing
resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses
built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading of the
“changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed conditions pertaining
to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the need for
affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change”
because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several
decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least
1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021, available
at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-
574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be considered a
new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 816
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>,
franklancaster@estes.org, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
Page 817
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed , in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any housing
resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses
built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading of the
“changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed conditions pertaining
to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the need for
affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change”
because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several
decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least
1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021, available
at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-
574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be considered a
new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 818
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>,
franklancaster@estes.org, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
Page 819
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed , in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any housing
resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses
built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading of the
“changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed conditions pertaining
to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the need for
affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change”
because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several
decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least
1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021, available
at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-
574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be considered a
new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 820
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>,
franklancaster@estes.org, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
Page 821
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed , in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any housing
resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses
built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading of the
“changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed conditions pertaining
to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the need for
affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change”
because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several
decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least
1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021, available
at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-
574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be considered a
new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 822
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:00 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org>, Marie Cenac
<mcenac@estes.org>, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Cindy Younglund <cyounglund@estes.org>,
franklancaster@estes.org, "TownClerk@estes.org" <TownClerk@estes.org>
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
Page 823
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed , in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any housing
resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales price of any houses
built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading of the
“changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed conditions pertaining
to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the need for
affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be deemed a “change”
because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of discussion for several
decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back to at least
1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6, 2021, available
at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-922b-
574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be considered a
new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 824
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: 685 Peak View rezoning application
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:08 AM
To: Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>
Good morning Edward and Hillary,
I have received and read your letter regarding 685 Peak View.
Mayor Koenig
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 26, 2023, at 6:00 AM, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> wrote:
To the Town Board:
Please consider this email in connection with your consideration of the 685 Peak View rezoning application.
My name is Edward Scarvalone. My wife (Hillary) and I live much of the year in Estes Park. We’ve been coming here
for decades.
We bought our house in Estes because we treasured the mountains and the outdoors. We also admired the great
history of the community: its legacy of wise leadership (especially strong women leadership), going back decades,
and the grit, foresight, and wisdom shown in how the Town rebuilt after the Lawn Lake flood of 1982.
As you may know, the rebuilding authority in charge of rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood realized that
the Town – in order to rebuild and thrive after this disaster – needed to make better use of the scenic landscape
created by the rivers (the Big Thompson and Fall River) running through town. Historically, the Town’s downtown
businesses faced Elkhorn Avenue only, and ignored the river side of the buildings – using it instead for dumpsters
and parking lots. See https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/07/15/lawn-lake-flood-40-years-ago-changed-estes-
park/.
In other words, the folks responsible for rebuilding the Town after the Lawn Lake flood recognized that Estes Park’s
most treasured resource is its scenic landscape, and that maximizing the enjoyment of the scenic landscape – by
constructing the Riverwalk – isn’t just “the right thing to do,” but also the best way to ensure smart growth going
forward. The success of the Riverwalk (as an economic driver and tourist attraction) speaks for itself.
How does this relate to the 685 Peak View rezoning application?
Frank Theis’s rezoning application asks the Board to ignore the very thing that makes Estes Park unique, and which
has historically attracted its residents (and tourists) – the scenic landscape. The Peak View site is a site whose scenic
values command respect. It affords wonderful views of the surrounding mountains (including Prospect Mountain
above it) for nearby residents, hikers using the Thumb Open Space, and the motoring public. Jamming 30-odd
houses to the site (as Theis originally proposed) will not only “stand out like a sore thumb” in relation to the mostly
one-acre neighborhoods that surround it, but will constitute a visual eyesore that detracts from the mountain views.
I understand that Theis’s application, on its face, only seeks approval for 3 houses, but let’s get serious: it’s a
precursor to Theis’s inevitable future application for more half-acre (or smaller) houses. Theis admitted as much
during the recent neighborhood meeting (Sept. 22, 2023), regarding his development plan (the “final plat review”) in
Page 825
which he referred to the 3 houses as “the first three lots that have been recommended for rezoning,” and explained
that the road in front of the lots is “temporary” because “the intent is to build through” to the adjoining street once
the remainder of the property is approved for rezoning. See audio tape of Sept. 22, 2023 meeting.
In other words, if the Town Board were to approve the rezoning, it will be followed, in short order, by another
application to add more lots to the property. Theis would doubtless use the approval to argue that an even denser
development has been blessed by the Board – which would further undermine the scenic values offered by the site.
Respect for the scenic values that make the Estes Valley so special should be sufficient for the Board to take a dim
view of Theis’s rezoning proposal. But there are some additional objections that have been made forcefully by other
local residents that I ask you to consider:
· The rezoning doesn’t add “affordable” or “workforce” housing. There is no assurance that any
housing resulting from the rezoning will be affordable. They will likely be market rate. The sales
price of any houses built will likely be north of $600,000 (probably much higher).
· There have been no “changes in condition” warranting the rezoning. The most natural reading
of the “changes in condition” language in the Development Code is that it refers to changed
conditions pertaining to the subject property, not to the Estes Valley as a whole.
But even if the Code provision were interpreted as referring to the surrounding community, the
need for affordable housing cannot be considered a “change in condition.” The issue cannot be
deemed a “change” because it is hardly “new.” Rather, the need for housing has been “a topic of
discussion for several decades,” as the EP Housing Authority Director herself concedes, going back
to at least 1968. See “Workforce housing needs continue to grow in the Estes Valley,” Dec. 6,
2021, available at https://www.estesparknews.com/featured_articles/article_81e882e8-56fe-11ec-
922b-574bf0c97810.html.
Plainly, a condition that’s been the topic of discussion “for decades,” or since 1968, cannot be
considered a new “change in condition” warranting a rezoning in 2023.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that the Town Board will take the prudent, wise course and reject
the rezoning application.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman
Page 826
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone proposal (Board).pdf
349K
Page 827
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone proposal (Board).pdf
349K
Page 828
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone proposal (Board).pdf
349K
Page 829
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone proposal (Board).pdf
349K
Page 830
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone proposal (Board).pdf
349K
Page 831
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org"
<khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org"
<bmacalpine@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone proposal (Board).pdf
349K
Page 832
I am wriƟng to oppose the requested rezoning of 685 Peak View.
It is my opinion that the “change of condiƟons” required by the Development Code as a prerequisite to
rezoning does not exist. The Staff Report contends that the Valley-wide workforce and affordable
housing shortage, supported by a Housing Needs Assessment of quesƟonable validity (since demand
projected by previous versions has never been met), consƟtutes such a change of condiƟons. This
misconstrues the requirement that the change of condiƟons be within “the area affected” by the
rezoning and is clearly not the original meaning of the Code, which intends that the qualifying change of
condiƟons be proximate to the area to which the rezoning proposal applies. The report’s lengthy
aƩempt to jusƟfy this misinterpretaƟon is nothing but jawboning, a specious argument that aƩempts to
convince based on word count and not logic. The proposal fails to meet the Code requirements at face
value.
The Staff report notes exisƟng lot sizes to the north and west (in PUDs that predate zoning established
under the Code) consistent with the current request and notes that there are numerous non-conforming
lots in these areas. Since PUDs are not generally held to strict conformance with zoning requirements,
this is not surprising, and since these condiƟons predate the established zoning, they cannot be used to
establish a change of condiƟons under the Code.
If the Town Board finds otherwise, however, I wo uld offer an alternaƟve.
The applicant previously proposed rezoning the enƟre parcel to R-1, the highest single-family density
classificaƟon contained in the Code. I fully agree with other commenters that this originally requested
density is incompaƟble in every way with the topography, surroundings, density, infrastructure and other
condiƟons of the neighborhood; in short, it is an insult to the newly enacted Comprehensive Plan, to
those who worked hard to create it, to the Development Code, to the deli beraƟve process required
thereunder, to the ciƟzens of the Valley and, most of all, to the other property owners of the
neighborhood.
In the face of severe and appropriate criƟcism from nearby property owners and interested parƟes from
throughout the Valley, that proposal was withdrawn and the current proposal offered as a subs Ɵtute.
This new proposal covers only the western porƟon of the parcel, roughly one-quarter of the full parcel,
requesƟng a lower density equivalent to double the permissible density as currently zoned. The
applicant claims to have no specific plans for the remainder of the parcel, a claim that appears
quesƟonable on its surface.
The original proposal was accompanied by a subdivision development plan that would have developed
the western porƟon of the parcel in a manner consistent with the new rezoning request. The new
request is accompanied by a subdivision development plan that is largely consistent with the plan
offered by the original proposal. Thus, with respect to the porƟon of the parcel that is the subject of the
current request, nothing of any great consequence has changed.
It seems likely that the applicant intends to renew his request for rezoning of the remainder of the parcel
at the higher density once the dust has seƩled on the current proposal, using the presumed approval of
the current proposal as the required change of condiƟon, which would then inarguably exist. This course
of acƟon, were it to be followed, would represent a cynical move to end-run the regulatory process to
achieve a highly unpopular, and inappropriate, goal.
Page 833
Thus, my proposal: If the Town Board is supporƟve of the requested density increase on the western
porƟon of the parcel, I would suggest that the requested rezoning to E (1/2 acre minimum) be made
with respect to the enƟre parcel, not just the western quarter (as requested by the applicant),
accompanied by a statement that this density (double the density for which the parcel is currently
zoned) is the maximum suitable density under current condi Ɵons, and that no subsequent change
should be considered absent a further change of condiƟons.
Note that this proposal makes no specific assumpƟon regarding the applicant’s plans for the balance of
the parcel. It merely offers him the same development opƟons he has already requested for the western
porƟon, which seems appropriate, while freeing him from the expense, delay and uncertainty of a
further rezoning request.
In reading the Code, I see nothing that would prevent the Trustees from approving a zoning change that
is expanded beyond that requested by a property owner. Indeed, such a rezoning is simply a legislaƟve
acƟon that is undertaken at the sole discreƟon of the Trustees. While I am not parƟcularly in favor of
any rezoning of the subject property, it is my feeling that this proposal may represent a compromise that
is in the best interest of all parƟes. Please give it your earnest consideraƟon.
Best regards,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Page 834
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:17 AM
To: Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>
Good morning Fred.
I have your comments and have read them. The Clerk’s office includes emails received in our packet and they post
online.
Mayor.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
Page 835
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Read: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: fredbarber@alum.mit.edu
Your message
To: Barbara MacAlpine
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
Sent: 9/26/23, 8:12:20 AM MDT
was read on 9/26/23, 8:42:18 AM MDT
Page 836
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone
1 message
Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:49 AM
To: Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu>
Fred, your comments have been added to tonight's packet, and I have read them.
Thank you.
Barbara
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:12 AM Frederic Barber <fredbarber@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Dear Trustees,
I sent the attached comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View yesterday, via the Town Clerk. I
trust they have been added to the packet for tonight’s meeting and hope that they’ve been forwarded to you directly.
Because of the importance of the issue, I’ve chosen to send them directly to you as well. I apologize if this is redundant
and hope you’ll have a chance to give them a read.
Thanks,
Fred Barber
2190 Devils Gulch Rd
--
Barbara MacAlpine
Trustee
Town of Estes Park
Page 837
Page 838
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Just Say No to Rezoning 685 Peakview.docx
14K
Page 839
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Just Say No to Rezoning 685 Peakview.docx
14K
Page 840
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Just Say No to Rezoning 685 Peakview.docx
14K
Page 841
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Just Say No to Rezoning 685 Peakview.docx
14K
Page 842
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Just Say No to Rezoning 685 Peakview.docx
14K
Page 843
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Just Say No to Rezoning 685 Peakview.docx
14K
Page 844
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org,
pmartchink@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Just Say No to Rezoning 685 Peakview.docx
14K
Page 845
Sept. 26, 2023
Mayor and Town Board:
Changes in Condition for 685 Peakview. What are those changes?
Over 90% of the homeowners in our area are against this rezoning. We have not
seen any “changes in condition” in our neighborhood. Almost a year ago the
applicant is on record as having said “There are no “changes in conditions”. What
has changed?
A zoning decision that merely provides for an individual benefit without
consideration for public benefit should not be supported.
The applicant’s stated intent is to create a new neighborhood, not to build in
compatibility with the existing one.
As we ponder future development here, we must carefully consider where it goes
and how it goes into our existing landscape, so we don’t kill what we have here in
Estes.
Let’s start by simply maintaining the recently approved and long-standing 1-acre
lot plan and staying in line with our guiding documents.
Just say NO to this rezoning request.
Thank you for your time.
Jan Scott
512 Devon Dr.
Page 846
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:44 AM
To: Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>
Hello Jan,
I just received and read your comments.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Page 847
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peakview
1 message
Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:45 AM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Thank you for your response. I appreciate all you do.
Jan Scott
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:45 AM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Hello Jan,
I just received and read your comments.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Jan Scott <jansctt33@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your time
Jan Scott
Page 848
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>
To Mayor Koenigh & Trustees
Please make sure this is in your packet for today
Have an awesome day!
Christy Jacobs
Cell#: 314-308-8881
Email: cj@ap-tm.com
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 849
September 26, 2023 10:50am
Dear Mayor Koenig & Trustee;
Strongly Oppose the Rezoning & Subdivision of 685 Peak View:
I cannot believe the Town of Estes Park Planning Department staff can legally change
the definition of "Change in Conditions" using a Housing Needs Assessment..."We need
housing" (more "We Want Housing"). We have been needing housing since 1968,
nothing new here.
How can a staff member be objective when they write a song on NIMBY's and state in a
meeting that they believe the Effective Area is all of Estes Park and Estes Valley...which
would be the majority of Larimer County. That would mean to remove all Zoning codes in
Estes Park.
Every little town, municipality, city, state that is required to have a Comprehensive Plan
and Housing Needs Assessment which both are attached to Grants that dictate
conditions which becomes the wanted outcome the Governor and the current White
House Administration wants...ends up negating any zoning and Comprehensive Plans.
As this town becomes very high density, what is your plan to get the citizens and visitors
out of Estes Park within minutes (not hours) of a ravaging wind driven wildfire storm? It
took over 5 to 6 hours in Oct 2020 to get the majority of everyone out. With about only
2 ways out Hwy 34 & 36.
Superior & Louisville, CO., lost over 1000 homes in the Dec. 30st 2021 wind driven
Marshal Fire. Still today has no Comprehensive evacuation plans when roads get
congested. Valuable minutes is now unfortunately hours...It took hours not minutes, to
get those people out and some had to get out of their vehicles and run than being stuck
in traffic. In the wind driven fire in Lihanna, HI, some of those people were burned
ALIVE in their vehicles. Is this the outcome we will see in the future because of higher
density in the mountains.
How about the homes in Wildland Urban Interface aka WUI, where insurance
companies are cancelling or no longer covering policies for homes in the WUI. The
State does not provide enough coverage for homes to be replaced here in Estes Park.
Fire Mitigation (feel good policy) this only goes so far until a Wind Driven Fire comes
along, which seems to be more often than not. I agree with you Mayor Koenig and
Lancaster, It's not a matter of if, but When. Billions of dollars are being spent for fire
mitigation. but it will not stop a wind driven fire.
Community Director Garner at the time of the Planning Commission meeting did not
state or mention that 685 Peak View subject property is butted up to NW end that is
bordered by Wildfire Hazard area per the Estes Valley Wildfire Hazard Maps. Director
Page 850
Garner just stated that it was not in a Wildfire Hazard area...which is somewhat
false. We are in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). With the prevailing winds and a
fire started, there would be another major disaster like Superior CO.
Even though Frank Theis states now of only having 3 lots with a temporary turn-around
for the Emergency vehicles, he did state at our last neighborhood meeting onSeptember
that that little road in front of the 3 lots will be extended and go all the way through like
his previous plan showed when he requested for R-1.
One breath he tells the neighbors that he doesn't know what he's going to do and the
next breath he tells us the little road with the temporary turn-around will ontinue
through.
I request you deny the Rezoning Request!
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effective Area...across from 685 Peak View
Page 851
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition Rezoning of 685 Peak View
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:57 AM
To: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Thank you Christy. I read your comments. Mayor
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:55 AM Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com> wrote:
To Mayor Koenigh & Trustees
Please make sure this is in your packet for today
Have an awesome day!
Christy Jacobs
Cell#: 314-308-8881
Email: cj@ap-tm.com
Page 852
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 853
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 854
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 855
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 856
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 857
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 858
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
Opposition of Rezoning 685 Peak View - Sept. 26 2023.docx
16K
Page 859
September 26, 2023 10:50am
Dear Mayor Koenig & Trustee;
Strongly Oppose the Rezoning & Subdivision of 685 Peak View:
I cannot believe the Town of Estes Park Planning Department staff can legally change
the definition of "Change in Conditions" using a Housing Needs Assessment..."We need
housing" (more "We Want Housing"). We have been needing housing since 1968,
nothing new here.
How can a staff member be objective when they write a song on NIMBY's and state in a
meeting that they believe the Effective Area is all of Estes Park and Estes Valley...which
would be the majority of Larimer County. That would mean to remove all Zoning codes in
Estes Park.
Every little town, municipality, city, state that is required to have a Comprehensive Plan
and Housing Needs Assessment which both are attached to Grants that dictate
conditions which becomes the wanted outcome the Governor and the current White
House Administration wants...ends up negating any zoning and Comprehensive Plans.
As this town becomes very high density, what is your plan to get the citizens and visitors
out of Estes Park within minutes (not hours) of a ravaging wind driven wildfire storm? It
took over 5 to 6 hours in Oct 2020 to get the majority of everyone out. With about only
2 ways out Hwy 34 & 36.
Superior & Louisville, CO., lost over 1000 homes in the Dec. 30st 2021 wind driven
Marshal Fire. Still today has no Comprehensive evacuation plans when roads get
congested. Valuable minutes is now unfortunately hours...It took hours not minutes, to
get those people out and some had to get out of their vehicles and run than being stuck
in traffic. In the wind driven fire in Lihanna, HI, some of those people were burned
ALIVE in their vehicles. Is this the outcome we will see in the future because of higher
density in the mountains.
How about the homes in Wildland Urban Interface aka WUI, where insurance
companies are cancelling or no longer covering policies for homes in the WUI. The
State does not provide enough coverage for homes to be replaced here in Estes Park.
Fire Mitigation (feel good policy) this only goes so far until a Wind Driven Fire comes
along, which seems to be more often than not. I agree with you Mayor Koenig and
Lancaster, It's not a matter of if, but When. Billions of dollars are being spent for fire
mitigation. but it will not stop a wind driven fire.
Community Director Garner at the time of the Planning Commission meeting did not
state or mention that 685 Peak View subject property is butted up to NW end that is
bordered by Wildfire Hazard area per the Estes Valley Wildfire Hazard Maps. Director
Page 860
Garner just stated that it was not in a Wildfire Hazard area...which is somewhat
false. We are in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). With the prevailing winds and a
fire started, there would be another major disaster like Superior CO.
Even though Frank Theis states now of only having 3 lots with a temporary turn-around
for the Emergency vehicles, he did state at our last neighborhood meeting onSeptember
that that little road in front of the 3 lots will be extended and go all the way through like
his previous plan showed when he requested for R-1.
One breath he tells the neighbors that he doesn't know what he's going to do and the
next breath he tells us the little road with the temporary turn-around will ontinue
through.
I request you deny the Rezoning Request!
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effective Area...across from 685 Peak View
Page 861
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to Rezoning & Subdividing 685 Peak View
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:04 PM
To: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Hello again Christy,
I have received this letter and have read it.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55 AM Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com> wrote:
See A achment.
I know I sent this earlier to Mayor Koenig...I thought I had only ll 11am...but I see it's ll 12noon.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Adjacent Property Owner
I am the Effected Area
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 862
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Fwd: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, pmarchink@estes.og, mcenac@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "TownClerk@estes.org"
<TownClerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <ep-peak-view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone
<edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
Opposition statement to 685 rezoning.pdf
3509K
Page 863
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Fwd: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, pmarchink@estes.og, mcenac@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "TownClerk@estes.org"
<TownClerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <ep-peak-view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone
<edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
Opposition statement to 685 rezoning.pdf
3509K
Page 864
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Fwd: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, pmarchink@estes.og, mcenac@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "TownClerk@estes.org"
<TownClerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <ep-peak-view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone
<edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
Opposition statement to 685 rezoning.pdf
3509K
Page 865
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Fwd: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, pmarchink@estes.og, mcenac@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "TownClerk@estes.org"
<TownClerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <ep-peak-view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone
<edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
Opposition statement to 685 rezoning.pdf
3509K
Page 866
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Fwd: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM
To: wkoenig@estes.org, pmarchink@estes.og, mcenac@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org,
cyounglund@estes.org, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "TownClerk@estes.org"
<TownClerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <ep-peak-view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone
<edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
Opposition statement to 685 rezoning.pdf
3509K
Page 867
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Fwd: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:40 AM
To: "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM
Subject: Fwd: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: <wkoenig@estes.org>, <pmarchink@estes.og>, <mcenac@estes.org>, <bmacalpine@estes.org>,
<khazelton@estes.org>, <cyounglund@estes.org>, franklancaster@estes.org <franklancaster@estes.org>,
TownClerk@estes.org <TownClerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward
<sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, Kristine L. Poppitz <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
Opposition statement to 685 rezoning.pdf
3509K
Page 868
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 1
To: planning@estes.org
Re: 685 Peak View Rezoning from E-1 to E
Date: August 15, 2023
John Ward
1420 Juniper Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
sewptr44@gmail.com
I. Introduction
On May 15, 2023 I posted a short comment to the Planning Commission making note of my recent
reading of material relevant to the proposed rezoning and stating my strong opposition to any
and all rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive which would enable or potentially enable any increase
in development density over that permitted by the current E-1 zoning. At the time I wanted to
make sure that my voice was part of the overwhelming public opposition to this application.
The purpose of these remarks is to spell out my reasons for opposition. The very first public
presentation at the December 15, 2022 meeting was a shocking display of total indifference to all
that makes Estes Park a special place to live, that rare balance of urban and rural in a dramatic
mountain landscape. Of course there was expectation that 685 Peak View would be developed
into one acre lots in accord with the long standing E-1 zoning. I would miss the traditional de facto
open space but accept a new owner’s rights to development consistent with neighborhood values.
The Applicant’s response has simply been out of bounds. Nothing has significantly improved in
successive plans over the last six months. I also found the Planning Department Memo to the
Planning Commission for their May 16, 2023 meeting disappointing in scope and structure. It
struck me as unbalanced with respect to an obsessive need for affordable workforce housing at
the expense of so many other equally important objectives in the Estes Forward Comprehensive
Plan. The VISION statement on page 6 of the Plan (quoted in full on page 18 below) provides a
stirring challenge for all of us who care about the future of our Town.
As a left-leaning idealist one might suppose that I would entertain respect for and sympathy with
the worthy goals of affordable workforce housing. Indeed I do, recognizing it as part of the global
inequality problem. It also has a rather particular personal meaning for me. On my first visit to the
Estes Park Post Office to get potential mail from our new PO box on the second day after we had
purchased our Juniper Drive house in May 1994, the first bit of conversation I over heard between
two people (strangers to me) was one of them saying good bye to the other and giving as reason
for leaving that he could no longer afford to live here. Susan and I had just moved here because
we could no longer afford to live in Boulder.
Unfortunately, the worthiness of a goal does not provide moral license to pursue that goal at all
costs. Action in pursuit of a goal which achieves very little or nothing for the goal but does
significant unnecessary harm as a byproduct is not a good course of action. This harm may be to
individuals or to other worthy goals or to both. It may be personal or financial or temporal in the
sense that a precedent is established which only becomes harmful at some future time.
Page 869
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 2
In the present case it is clear that the rezoning could be personally harmful to owners of property
near the rezoned property. Many of them have expressed this emotive harm in terms of loss of
views ranging from wildlife in the meadow to the beauty of high alpine ridge lines. I am not an
adjacent property owner but would sense these losses with every drive to or from my home or
when walking past the property to or from the Thumb Open Space trail.
There are also other harms, all of which have been raised in various contexts in Public Comments
and neighborhood meetings including, but not limited to:
• loss of wildlife habitat (this is harm to the wildlife involved, not to our pleasure in viewing
that wildlife);
• traffic safety (especially along Peak View Drive at the two curves — (a) Devon/Juniper
intersection and (b) roughly half-way between the Longs Drive and Twin Drive intersections);
• increased runoff due to significant reduction in permeable surface soil. Property owners
along the south side of Peak View Drive report that there are already drainage problems.
• increased risk of fire (especially under the high wind conditions often prevailing across this
property in dry seasons such as late fall and winter);
• loss of Estes Park character and charm — those special qualities which make Estes Park a
unique and wonderful place to visit and that distinctive blend of town and country which
make living here something to enjoy most every day of the year.
• Long term reduction in property values — last in my list but not least and written in italics
for emphasis
With respect to harm to other worthy goals, the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan includes many
goals which cannot be simultaneously pursued in equal measure. Choices must be made and
current economic conditions are not favorable to having a cluster of small homes on small lots
which are workforce affordable as the applicant desires (at least in the plans now withdrawn). He
told us the price and numerous people did the math and told him it was not possible.
At this time in Estes Park, workforce affordability seems limited to some variant of multi-unit
residential properties. There are an estimated 300 to 400 such dwelling units currently under
development or construction in the Estes Valley but I do not recall a single example of a
development large or small consisting of single family homes on individual lots deliberately
designed and built for citizens who meet workforce qualifications.
It would appear that with arrogant indifference to all of the above, 685 Peak View Drive is being
advanced as a test case against economic reality for the benefit of one developer and the goals of
one Planning Department both indifferent to harming surrounding neighborhoods. I do not believe
that affordable workforce housing can be attained on the 685 Peak View acres. If not for the
workforce, who then will be served? Several people have suggested that moderately expensive
small homes on small lots will nicely serve the vacation home needs of middle income middle
class retirees and families. Yet another missing middle.
Against the backdrop of numerous neighborhood meetings (often unofficial for lack of proper
notice) and multiple applications with confusing Plans and Plats let me consider another sore
subject: staking. At the July 3, 2023 meeting I was initially unsure what this meant and what the
Page 870
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 3
stakes might look like. Obviously I had never read any of the rezoning application forms line by
line and checkbox by checkbox. The next day I hiked the Thumb Trail and made a point to return
by walking the 685 west boundary being careful to trespass on the west side of the property line
as nearly as I could follow it. The staking was obvious and it was also obviously not there when I
walked that line a couple of weeks earlier with my GPS to get an estimate of grade on the
nominally steepest part of the property.
As Mr. Theis explained at the July 3rd meeting, when he signed the current (5 lots total original)
application on May 30, 2023 he was assured by the surveyors that the lots would be staked the
next day. In fact, it is safe to say that the property remained unstaked for the entire month of
June. Looking back at all of the previous series of applications posted to the Town web site (39
lots, Dec 3, 2022; 30 lots, Mar 15, 2023; and 26 lots, May 10, 2023; all now withdrawn) all three
explicitly or implicitly have the Yes checkbox marked affirmatively on the line that reads, “Site
staking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete?”
The first two applications appear to share the same application pages, dating back to Nov 3,
2022, except for the number of lots on the Proposed Land Use line. Staking 39 lots for the initial
application would have been a significant undertaking and it is difficult to suppose that staking
that many lots would not have also made a pronounced visual impression even to casual passers
by. The third application has a new Plan marked Final and a new Statement of Intent but no new
application pages that I could find. It is identified on the Town web site as “updated” and may
have been treated implicitly as an amended application.
Completed Application forms also include an Applicant Certification page on which Applicant
certifies “that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge…” While it is always difficult to be sure about what another person does or does
not know it is pretty clear that no stakes were put in place until July 3, 2023. What is the penalty
for mistakenly checking the Yes box multiple times? It looks like a large reward.
II. Rezone 685 Peak View
This section deals with the application submitted June 7, 2023 which was updated June 26, 2023
in order to change the number of 1/2 acre lots from 4 down to 3 which avoids the need for Open
Space (4 lots total). Also as part of this application, the Coyote Ridge Subdivision (CRS)
Preliminary Plat was submitted on June 29, 2023 and updated August 4, 2023. That update was
to correct the Application from Rezoning to Preliminary Subdivision Plat. There is also an
updated CRS Preliminary Plat No. 2 dated August 3, 2023 extracted from the Planning Commission
Packet for the August 15th meeting. Compared to the original Plat this map has a great deal more
information (very cluttered) including contour lines and vegetation (mostly trees, somewhat
casually placed relative to the 2019 Larimer County GIS maps based on aerial photos) and some
of the lot areas are slightly different. For example, Lot 1 has all the same perimeter dimensions
but slightly more area — 11 square feet more which is a 0.049% change and totally ignorable.
In spite of what he said towards the abrupt end of the infamous July 3, 2023 neighborhood
meeting, I firmly believe there is a glint in the Applicant’s eye about where he wants to go and
how he will now try to get there. By itself this application does not make sense. All prior
applications subdivided the entire 7.62 acres and essentially got nowhere. The idea of a few
Page 871
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 4
larger (1/2 acre and 1/4+ acre) lots made its appearance in the third application (May 10th, now
withdrawn) and the larger lots started in the southwest (lower left) corner of the property just as
they do in the present case.
Indeed, this application plat looks a lot like the May 10, 2023 application plan with only the
three southwest corner lots, no open space, and perhaps a better road. The result is that a lot of
neighborhood objections are minimized or eliminated. Also the rezoning from E-1 to E seems
more consistent with surrounding neighborhoods then the R-1 zoning requested in prior
applications. (I find the nomenclature for Estes Park residential zoning confusing: E-1 is less
dense that E but R-1 is more dense than R.)
It should also be emphasized that one major neighborhood concern is not addressed by this
application, namely, that there should be no change to the historic E-1 zoning.
So what would be achieved in this rezoning? Mr. Theis could proceed with subdivision followed
by selling lots or building and selling houses, both of which permit him to recoup some or all of
his purchase price. His remaining 5.83 acres would then be a great deal more valuable to sell or
perhaps develop into the unfinished part of the May 10, 2023 application. The precedent for up
zoning to higher densities would already be in place although there might be three more neighboring
households in opposition. In other words, all of this serves to benefit one man, Mr. Theis. It has a
name but is not mentioned in the EPDC. I checked.
As with the Planning Department Memo for the May 16, 2023 Planning Commission meeting,
the Memo prepared for the August 15, 2023 Commission meeting recommends approval of the
Application be forwarded to the Town Board of Trustees. To this end, I find that the Memo is
quick to emphasize that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the neighborhood and with
nearby growth patterns when, in fact, some numbers are wrong and some conclusions are more
fanciful than factual. The Memo is also excessively reliant on statements and key findings drawn
from the 2023 HNA report. While this is not surprising, much of that report is so strongly focused on
attainable, affordable, and workforce housing that it does not provide a sound basis for the
rezoning requested in this application. Additionally, the Memo takes no notice of defects in
procedure and the more than 1600 people signing a petition in opposition. An objectively
balanced Memo to the Trustees would not suffer these short comings.
I live in Koral Heights located in unincorporated Larimer County and our zoning is EV E-1 (Estate)
with minimum lot size of 1 acre. The Memo (p.8 Adjacent Zoning and Context) uses EV E1 Estate. I
am not going to quibble about the hyphen or the precise verbal suffix except to note a source of
confusion over the hyphen: Larimer County Land Use Code (November 28, 2022) Article 13.2
uses the hyphen in conformance with Estes Park practice. That makes sense. However, Larimer
County Zoning Districts Map – Estes Valley Planning Area (April 2021) does not use the hyphen.
The other two references in the Memo dealing with surrounding zoning areas sidestep the issue
by just referring to us as Unincorporated Larimer County as if we were some kind of pariah .
(p.8 Zoning [Map] and p.9 Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary)
While I am dealing with that paragraph, there is a typo made twice: the minimum acreage size
for R zoning is 1/4 acre and not 1/2 acre. My own analysis of the lot sizes in the Prospect Mountain
PUD gives slightly different figures but confirms that the person writing that paragraph was
Page 872
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 5
using the correct 1/4 acre lot threshold. Since that person began a summary sentence with “Of
note…” I will note that my analysis indicates that 14 (37%) of the 38 lots are less than 1/4 acre in
size (nonconforming). I am not sure what the point is with nonconformance in surrounding
properties often platted long ago but there is a lot of it, especially in E-1 zones in Estes Park.
Consider, for example, the two lots (0.88 and 0.84 acres) on the south side of Peak View Drive
at the Devon –Juniper intersection or the case of Dekker Circle on the south side of Peak View
Drive across from the Prospect Mountain PUD in which 13 out of 14 lots are nonconforming.
Finally, this paragraph does misrepresent some germane facts and it is a misrepresentation that
was also repeated orally by one or more people from the Town and/or on the Commission at the
meeting on August 15, 2023. It is that the R zoned Prospect Mountain PUD contains numerous
small (some nonconforming) properties and “the proposed rezoning of 1.78 acres from E-1 to E
will create a transition between the higher density development pattern to the west and the larger
lot sizes east and south of the subject property.” Emphasis added.
In fact, the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View can not create such a transition zone because
that zone already exists on the eastern and southern boundaries of the Prospect Mountain PUD.
The two largest lots on the eastern side (0.58 and 0.73 acres) define the western boundary of the
685 property and the third lot on the eastern side (0.51 acre) abuts Koral Heights. The 0.73 and
0.46 acre lots which define the southeast corner of the PUD provide a better transition to the
oversize lots in the Peak View Subdivision than could be achieved by the 0.52 acre Lot 1 in the
proposed rezoning. The smaller (0.46 acre) of these two corner lots in the PUD also provides
better transition to the nonconforming lots in the Majestic Pines Subdivision across Peak View
Drive (Dekker Circle).
Now if Lot 1 of the proposed rezoning were a one acre lot that could indeed provide a better
transition to the larger than one acre lots to the south. If the other two lots in the proposed
rezoning were also one acre in size they could also provide better transition to the larger than one
acre lots to the southeast depending, of course, on what eventually happens to the 685 property
between the one acre lots and the southeast boundary.
All of this is highly speculative but I would like the speculation to at least take into account what
is already on the ground. And that is the Prospect Mountain PUD. Of the 14 nonconforming
properties only five border Peak View Drive and of these five, two are only nonconforming by one
one hundredth of an acre and consist of a duplex facing onto the turn around circle at the west end
of Darcy Dr. This means that their backyards stretch down to Peak View Dr. and one of these is a
triangular yard which only borders Peak View Drive by about 16 feet. Thus out of 38 properties,
only three of the nonconforming properties have any significant border along Peak View Dr (465
and 469 Marcus Ln. and 475 Peak View Dr.). There is one other nonconforming lot (565A Devon)
which borders Devon Drive as it curves through the PUD. The remaining 8 nonconforming lots are
hidden away on the two short dead-end streets, Darcy Dr. and Marcus Ln. (about 700 and 600 feet
long respectively). And by hidden, I mean if not camouflaged, at least obscure or out of sight from
main roads (Devon and Peak View). For example, Darcy initially goes a little uphill and then drops
down slightly in elevation from its intersection with Devon and it curves slightly to the south so
that the most egregious of the small lots and the single triplex built across them are extremely
difficult to see by walking or traveling in a car along Devon. It takes favorable light and prior
Page 873
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 6
knowledge of what one is looking for. All of this may be confusing in which case consult
Appendix A which lists the 14 nonconforming lots by the streets which their boundaries border.
The Prospect Mountain PUD is instructive in another important way. Along Peak View Drive the
typography changes significantly roughly at the Devon intersection. To the east of this intersection
the upward slope is fairly gentle, rising about 15 to 20 feet over the first 100 feet north of the
pavement edge along Peak View Drive. Further to the north the grade increases somewhat up to
roughly a line defined by Devon and Darcy at which point there is further increase in grade on up
towards the Thumb. This permits a setback of about 100 feet from the Peak View pavement edge
for the first row of four dwellings (two duplexes) facing onto Devon with backyards towards
Peak View. All four lots are under 1/2 acre but the combination of setback and grade make them
ideally recessive.
West of the Devon intersection the hillside rises sharply so that development is forced much
closer to Peak View or is built much higher on the slope facing onto Darcy Drive or Marcus
Lane. (West of 475 Peak View Drive only side or backyards actually border Peak View.) In both
cases the properties west of Devon are more visually intrusive than those east of Devon when
driving or walking along Peak View Drive.
This suggests that ideal development location begins with a setback of about 100 feet from Peak
View Drive at an elevation of 15 to 20 feet above the road pavement. Since the 685 Peak View
property is an eastern extension of Prospect Mountain PUD one would expect that it would support
development locations meeting those ideals at least on the western side where the proposed 1/2
acre lots are located. Unfortunately, the Coyote Ridge Subdivision starts off on the wrong foot. The
typography is appropriate but the lots are not ideally shaped. They are a little small and definitely
too rectangular, i.e., east/west dimension is too long and north/south dimension too short.
Consequently, the 100 foot setback distance falls 10 feet north of the midpoint on the Lot 1 west
boundary at a height of about 15 feet. An eastern extension of this west boundary point parallel
to the south boundary encroaches on the southeast corner of Lot 2 at a height about 10 feet above
Peak View pavement. In other words, development respecting the 100 foot setback consistent
with property to the west would be unrealistically confined to a small pie slice along the north
and west property boundaries of Lot 1 as shown in Appendix B.
Note that there is nothing in these setback and height figures that implies any kind of building
restriction on the proposed Lot 1. It is simply to show that every reasonable building location
would prove more intrusive, to greater or lesser degree depending on design and landscaping, than
what presently exists immediately to the west. Of course if Lot 1 were a one acre lot (like it should
be) life could be different.
1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.
Section 3.3.D of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) is called Standards for Review and
lists three conditions which must be satisfied by all applications for rezoning. The words in bold
face above are the complete and exact statement of the first condition. Rezone means to change or
amend the body of text which specifies the zoning of every property in Estes Park. I have no
Page 874
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 7
trouble with the Applicant using the word “rezoning” in place of “amendment” in the Statement
of Intent which accompanies the updated Plan filed on June 26, 2023. In some respects rezoning
clarifies what is requested here and I will continue to refer to it that way. But deep down in the
world of legal language keep in mind that it is an amendment.
I find the statement to be relatively straightforward to understand as follows. “Changes in conditions”
is expressed in the present tense and therefore refers to recent or current events as opposed to
ancient history for which one might use the more inclusive “changed conditions” and the “areas
affected” phrase restricts these changes to the property of interest, 685 Peak View Drive in this
case. Whatever may happen short of a sky scraper on the other side of town is not of concern.
The only real question is how close or nearby the changes must be to affect the property of
interest sufficiently to justify rezoning. I also consider that the character and size of the changes
are factors in what this distance should be. Constructing a multi-family residential development
on the four Koral Heights lots immediately across Devon Drive (Prospector South if you wish)
would definitely be of concern. Building a significantly scaled down version of that project on
lots at the north end of Koral Heights may or may not be of concern to 685 though it would
certainly increase traffic on Juniper Drive and/or Prospect Mountain Road and would still be of
great concern to closer lots in town and county.
The Town of Estes Park, on the other hand, enlarges the meaning of “changes in conditions” to
include abstract demographic changes which exist only in a Town or Valley wide sense. It is
not obvious how this kind of generalization coexists with areas affected which implies two kinds
of limitation, a geographical restriction as noted above and the requirement of “an effect strong
enough to evoke a reaction” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language,
Second College Edition, 1980). How is it that a demographic change can be specific to a
particular area that is small compared to the area defining that condition? And how is it that a
demographic change can actually have an effect on such a particular area? And what would that
effect be and how would it be measured?
There is also some difficulty with the word “address” as used in this context which I take to be
address an issue. In particular there seems to be no clear cut distinction between acknowledge
the issue and solve the issue. For address used this way a common synonym is deal with which
generally places a greater emphasis on solving problems rather than just acknowledging them.
Clearly one would like to solve problems by rezoning but in the case of abstract demographic
changes that places a more stringent demand on precisely what the problem(s) are, what constitutes
solution, and how a particular rezoning can actually achieve that solution. The word necessary
also gets into the act here. If a particular rezoning is actually necessary then there is no other way
to address the identified abstract demographic change without this rezoning. How rezoning a
particular area, especially a small one, can usefully or functionally address a valley wide
demographic problem strains the imagination.
The abstract demographic change in conditions most commonly cited is primarily the issue of an
increased need for affordable workforce housing as developed in the 2023 and 2016 Housing
Needs Assessments (commonly referred to as HNA reports or studies although the full titles in
both years are somewhat different and longer). These studies extend Estes Park Housing Authority
work dating back to 1989. What is difficult to understand is exactly how a small property is
Page 875
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 8
impacted (affected) by this kind of change in conditions and how rezoning can serve to alter or
solve the problems of insufficient workforce housing. The assertion of a miniscule percentage
improvement will generally provide insufficient basis for rezoning relative to clearly identifiable
harms such as those described in the Introduction to these remarks. Fundamentally, I think the
present development code is simply not up to this kind of use (or abuse).
The arguments above are clearly applicable to issues in the previous (now withdrawn) plans and
signal potential dangers when one tries to extend traditional meanings beyond what zoning was
originally set up to handle. In the present case the explanatory three lines in the Plan lack all
reference to attainable, affordable, or workforce housing. The lines which remain claim the usual
lack of land creating significant change in the land use needs compared to when the property was
originally zoned (no supporting examples are provided).
In other words, our present concern in the Plan before us is exclusively with the lack of availability
of half acre lots zoned E. We are not even interested in whether or not the ultimate owners live
and work in the Estes Valley. It is also curious why the Applicant is requesting to rezone only
enough land for three 1/2 acre lots when the property fully rezoned from E-1 to E could probably
support 10 to 12 such lots. If there is a valley wide need for 1/2 acre lots, how is it fulfilled by just
three such lots carved out of 685 Peak View Drive? At best, that would be stingy.
Something is out of place. Something is missing. This plan has more the character of a plot than
a plat. It is concerned only with 1/2 acre lots and implicitly denies any alleged shortage in these
lots — by only providing three instead of the ten or more such lots it could provide if there were a
genuinely serious deficiency. All we can safely conclude at this point is that there has been no
showing that the amendment is necessary to address any changes in any conditions anywhere.
Therefore there is no basis for the proposed rezoning.
While I consider the above analysis accurate and the conclusion correct, it lies beyond what the
Planning Department is prepared to discuss. Therefore I will turn to what the Memo does discuss
with the insistence that this discussion falls on base and irrelevant foundations. Keep in mind that
the HNA reports are strongly biased towards the problems of attainable, affordable, and
workforce housing. Begin with the first bulleted key point and corresponding example in the
2023 HNA that illustrates a change in conditions:
• A Priority Action to “Increase Housing Supply.” (Strategic Plan, p.7)
This is not a sentence which is not a good way to start. Rather, it is compounded from the overall
section title Priority Actions stripped to the singular starting at the top of Strategic Plan Page 4
and the second of five such priority actions called Increase Housing Supply beginning on
Strategic Plan Page 7. It is not clear whether this refers to the first paragraph of this second
Priority Action or the whole section which includes six subsections and extends over five pages
(Strategic Plan Pages 7-11). I will proceed with the worse case — it means to point to the
complete section spread over 5 pages.
The introductory paragraph sets the tone: “Housing production has not kept up with job growth
in the region, with particularly severe impacts to working age households. The Needs Assessment
establishes that more housing is needed across a wide range of price points, tenure, size and type
Page 876
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 9
(duplex, triplex, apartments, small houses, etc.).” While et cetera includes an unspecified range,
the emphasis is clearly on attainable, affordable, and workforce housing.
I don't need to quote anymore. I have read all six subsections and everyone is concerned with
attainable, affordable, and workforce housing. No section directly addresses any housing less
dense or more expensive than what may serve as workforce housing. Therefore this bulleted
point is irrelevant to the rezoning requested.
With the second bullet point on Memo page 4 (PDF page 10) the trouble begins: “The pace of
housing unit growth in the last decade is the slowest since the 1960s.” Figure III-1 on the next
page of the 2023 HNA is meant to illustrate this point and I don't particularly doubt it although the
necessary proof data from 1961-1970 is not shown. It is also not clear how much of the current
decade is included in the phrase Built since 2010. References in the Figure suggest to me that the
data is for the decade 2011-2020 but why couldn’t it just say that? Perhaps there was later data?
This last decade (2011-2020) has been a difficult one, beginning with recovery from the Financial
Crisis of 2008 and ending with the Covid-19 Pandemic. While the economic recovery was steady
through most of the decade, home ownership and family wealth failed to rebound as much as
expected, especially in comparison to recovery from the prior recession of 1991 when those two
measures set record highs. Could this have anything to do with the decade 1991-2000 being the
single decade in which a “quarter of the units in the Town of Estes Park were built” (2023 HNA,
Section 3, Page 2)? In any event it is thus not surprising that new housing in the decade 2011-
2020 was down. It would have been more interesting and constructive to know how it compared
to what appear to be more typical decades, 1971-1990 and, in truth, how it compared to the
reference decade 1961-1970. The percentage figures provided in Figure III-1 are not sufficient to
accurately make those kinds of comparisons. (Web reference: Pew Research Center, “Comparing
two U.S. economic recessions, recoveries” Dec 13, 2019)
Also most of the 2023 HNA report Section I. Demographic Profile shows there were essentially
no significant demographic changes in the Estes Park and Valley over the 2011-2020 decade.
There was a transition to an older population, the population did grow for the first half of the
decade and then declined back to nearly the 2011 starting point, and there was steady job growth
mostly satisfied by new commuters. It is not clear why or how these changes could have
stimulated increased housing construction, especially when viewed against the economic contexts
noted above.
For a Key Finding listed as the very first such finding at the beginning of Section III, Housing
Profile & Affordability Analysis in the 2023 HNA I find the presentation of supporting evidence
disappointing. While I am inclined to view the reduction in housing construction in 2011-2020 in the
context of recovery from the 2008 great recession, especially in contrast to recovery from the earlier
1991 recession, it might also to some extent have been a recognition that the Estes Valley is limited
in size and growth needs to be tempered somewhat relative to that of the prior decade. I know that is
not a phrase welcomed by the Planning Department but one must realistically consider the possibility
of some truth in it. From my perspective excessive growth has ruined what a National Park should be
and it could do the same for the Estes Valley.The second bullet point and its accompanying
Figure III-1 do not explicitly deal with housing needs appropriate to 1/2 acre lots and in other
respects are not persuasive.
Page 877
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 10
The third bullet point in the Staff Discussion on page 4 of the Memo (PDF page 10) is the
celebrated finding that “2720 units will be needed by 2030 to address the current shortage of
workforce housing and the forecasted employment demand.” The ubiquitous Figure III-22 from
2023 HNA Section III, Page 19 is included on the next page of the Memo.
There are a lot of assumptions, values, and forecasts that go into this 2720 integer for the
number of new housing units needed by 2030. The color coded data points across the top of
Figure III-22 denote seven different types of data of which the Units Built figure is likely the
most accurate because, in principle, it involves only straight forward counting of Assessor
records. All of the others come with varying degrees of uncertainty. Worse, when two figures
with known amounts of uncertainty are combined in some way the uncertainty of the result will
be greater than that of either of the two figures with which one begins. In the case of addition,
the result uncertainty will be the sum of the initial uncertainties although the percentage
uncertainty will be intermediate.
Suppose one starts with a value of 100 and an uncertainty of 10. This means the value is highly
likely to lie between 90 and 110. Now add this to a value of 370 whose uncertainty is 50. The
result will be 470 with an uncertainty of 60. Looked at another way, the first figure has a 10%
uncertainty, the second figure a 13.5% uncertainty and the final total figure has a 12.8% uncertainty.
That the percentage uncertainty can be smaller is surprising but it comes about because one divides
by the final number which is larger than either of the starting numbers. This artificial example is
simplistic but the essential point is that input uncertainties lead to output uncertainties. The
2023 HNA report does not carefully track or describes these uncertainties. In other words, we
have absolutely no idea what the accuracy of the 2720 figure might reasonably be.
As an example of how 2023 HNA ignores these issues, consider Figure III-23 (Section III, Page
20) which provides a table with the numbers required to calculate the housing unit need for
in-commuters in 2015 and 2022. There is no mention of input uncertainties or the range of error
one might expect in the output value of 650 for the in-commuter housing need in 2022. I find that
omission unacceptable in a multi-year planning document.
Moreover, I do not consider that the two sentences devoted to this Figure provide an accurate
description: “The percentage of the workforce commuting has increased from 2015 as has the
size of the overall workforce. The compound effect is that a modest increase in the commuter rate
represents nearly a doubling in the number of units needed to accommodate those commuters
who want to live in Estes Park” [emphasis added using bold font]. The first sentence is trivial
and unimpeachable. The second sentence in italics is more or less wrong and totally misleading.
The Commuter rate is the fraction or percentage of Employees who are in-commuters. Using the
numbers in this Table for 2015 one has 6309 Employees and 1020 in-commuters so the
Commuter rate fraction is 1020/6309 = 0.1617 which can also be expressed as the Commuter
rate percentage 16% where in the first case I have rounded the decimal fraction to 4 digits and in
the second case rounded the percentage to two digits which is how it is given in Figure III-23.
Similarly for the 2022 figures the Commuter rate fraction is 1925/6615 = 0.2910 or as a percentage,
29% (in the prior expressions the forward slash indicates division for which one could also use the
division symbol ÷).
Page 878
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 11
The Commuter housing needs which equals the product of the Commuter rate percentage and the
number of jobs available and an overall scaling factor treated as a constant were 340 units in 2015
and 650 units in 2022 resulting in an increase in need of 650 – 340 = 310 units. The fractional
increase in need relative to the 2015 value is 310/340 = 0.9118 which we can also express as a
91% increase. That amounts to the “nearly a doubling” as claimed.
At this point we have three percentage values on the table: the Commuter rate percentages, 16%
for 2015 and 29% for 2022 (calculated two paragraphs up) and the 91% increase in commuter
housing need over that same time period as calculated in the preceeding paragraph.
Where the 2023 HNA report writer erred was in looking at these various percentages, noting that the
Commuter rate percent values changed by 13 percentage points (16% to 29% but note — this is a
difference in percentage values and not any kind of percentage change in those percentages) and
thinking of that change as “modest” compared to the 91% increase (nearly a doubling) in number
of housing units needed for 2022 compared to 2015. In a certain perverse sense it is modest but
the two numbers have little to do with one another so the observation is of no value. The
difference in two numbers is totally different from the percent change in these two numbers. In this
discussion the numbers happen to be percentages but that is irrelevant. They are just numbers for
which there is a difference, 29% – 16% = 13%, all of these being percentage values and not
percentage changes. Percentage changes of percentages is rarely encountered in my experience.
One can not say that the two percentages are totally unrelated because the number of in-commuters
in need of Estes Valley housing can be framed in terms of the Commuter rate fraction or
percentage. Consequently, there are some mathematical subtleties in need of attention which I
provide in Appendix C. Those ill-equipped to wade through this Appendix will hopefully trust
my explanations and take some comfort in the fact that the 2023 HNA report writer also did not
fully understand what is going on.
In my view, the damage done by the way in which the report was written (aside from it being
incorrect) is to accustom the reader to the idea that modest changes can produce big effects. In
some instances this is certainly true. There are an enormous number of details in this report and
as the mind becomes overloaded with detail there may be the temptation to treat the aggregate as
modest and somewhat ignorable and just accept the surprisingly large final number, 2720 in the
present case. That is sophistry, not social science. To repeat what I wrote above, we have no idea
how accurate 2720 might be.
There is more to say about the 2023 HNA report and the 2720 number which I will return to
below. For now, I move on to the other four bullet points in this section of the Memo all of
which reference Section IV of the 2023 HNA report which is called Community Engagement
Findings and describes the Estes Valley 2022 Housing Survey (882 total responses, 190 Spanish
speakers) and Stakeholder Interviews (with invited participants including developers, economic
development organizations, social service providers, and employers). “A list of stakeholder
participants was consolidated by Town staff” (Section IV, Page 21). Although correctly used and
dictionary definition perfect, consolidated strikes me as kind of an odd word in this context;
prepared would have been my choice. Both words mean the Town selected the stakeholders and
that concerns me since the Town, or at least the Planning Department, has a biased interest in the
results.
Page 879
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 12
In reading the Stakeholder Perspectives (Section IV, pages 21-25) the statements are overwhelmingly
focused on availability and affordability of housing and on residents in need of substantial social
service support. This may reflect the choice of questions as much as any bias in the selection of
stakeholders. Those questions concerned “housing needs, workforce needs, development, and
housing market trends in the Estes Valley” (Section IV, page 21). It is also possible and reasonable
that different sets of questions were asked of stakeholders based on areas of experience and expertise.
My worry is about the extent to which the stakeholder and question field is adequately level, i.e.,
free of bias.
One should also note that where Bullet Point 4 introduces the quoted phrase with “stakeholders
noted” which is technically correct, the actual paragraph in 2023 HNA at the bottom of Section
IV, Page 3 introduces that phrase with “Residential developers highlighted” which may explain
some personal interests in “incentives, subsidies, etc.” Thus wording in the Planning Department
Memo deliberately discards information about the stakeholders making the claims in bullet
point 4. Was this necessary? Does it help me not to worry about bias?
Interestingly, the EstesForward Comprehensive Plan includes a 248 page Appendix C in which
stakeholders are identified by agency or organization and there are nearly endless pages of
questions and responses for various interview and listening sessions. That may be excessive. I have
yet to read all of those questions and responses and hope I never do but they are there when needed.
The 2023 HNA report is known to be deficient in the handling of uncertainties in numeric data. It is
also easy to appreciate how the choice of questions and/or the choice of stakeholders might prejudice
the conclusions used in bullet points 4, 6, and 7. Generalizing from mere numbers, over all I find
the 2023 HNA report deficient in documenting the bases for its conclusions.
The best that can be done is to use what is available. Bullet points 4, 6, and 7 reference
summaries of stakeholder opinions all of which specifically include words and phrases such as:
attainable, affordable and workforce development (point 4); reasonably priced housing, affordable
housing (point 6); affordable housing solutions (point 7). The primary concerns in all of these
stakeholder perspectives are with ways to increase the number of affordable dwelling units.
The question for rezoning is what will three 1/2 acre lots do for these issues? Especially three lots
which may well be some of the last lots in the Estes Valley with grand views towards Mount
Meeker and Longs Peak. Be a lucky buyer and build a mountain mansion. And if that is not obvious,
my answer is that rezoning these three lots will do absolutely nothing for any of the issues in
bullet points 4, 6, and 7.
As for bullet point 5, it faithfully reports what is written in 2023 HNA for Figure IV-8 (Memo,
page 6; Section IV, page 13). Faithful reporting, however, does not preclude serious questions.
How is difficulty in finding housing which meets personal needs in the Estes Valley germane to
the rezoning application before us? Susan and I certainly had difficulties in our property search in
1993 but I never imagined that they should be the basis for any kind of rezoning. Could three
more 1/2 acre lots for the occupants of about 1236 rental households and 650 in-commuters who
want to live in the Estes Valley make a noticeable difference? The Planning Department Memo
writer optimistically argues that rezoning “can be one small step to alleviate the housing
shortage” (Memo, page 6). How small? Consider 3/(1236+650) = 3/1886 = 0.001591 fractional
difference (= 0.1591% difference). Alternatively, forget about the details and just consider
Page 880
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 13
3/2720 = 0.001103 fractional difference (= 0.1103% difference). We all know where the 2720
comes from; we just don’t know its real value. Also, keep in mind that these small figures are
upper limits which depend on all three of the lots (or lots with houses) being sold to renters or
in-commuters covered by the 2023 HNA report from which I obtained my numbers for renters
and in-commuters. See references below. In place of the “one small step” line I think a more
accurate line would be “one vanishingly small step…” which, as a practical matter, is probably
indistinguishable from zero. [References: (a). 1236 rental households figure: About 9510 Estes
Valley housing units × 0.13 fraction renter occupied = 1236 occupied rental housing units. Section
III page 2 and Figure III-2 on page 3; and (b) number of in-commuters who want to live in Estes
Valley, 2022 figure = 650. Section III, Figure III-23, page 20.]
Is “one small step” even possible? The answer to this question depends on how much these
properties will cost when built with a suitable single family dwelling unit (as required by the E
zoning). While this is getting way beyond any expertise I may have, I can point out one example
as a starting point: the house Mr. Theis finished building this past February at 1151 Saxon Court
just off the west side of Hwy. 7 a little north of Lexington Lane. The Saxon Ct. property is 1230
square feet with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, and two car attached garage on 0.33 acres for $674,000.
One can expect that the three 1/2 acre lots from the proposed rezoning will cost more because
they are larger, are located in a much nicer residential area of the Town, and potentially have
picture window access to splendid mountain vistas. In my opinion, the exterior design will also
have to be upgraded relative to the Saxon Court property to better fit into the surrounding
neighborhood. Accordingly, my guestimate is that the properties will at minimum cost in the
range of $750,000 to $800,000 and this is in the range of sale prices over the past three years of
homes in the Prospect Mountain PUD immediately to the west of the proposed rezoning, none of
which were purchased by full time residents. (Reference is the March 23, 2023 Public Comment
from Michael Bryson, President on behalf of the Prospect Mountain Townhome Association, Inc.)
An estimate of the annual income required to afford one of these properties from the Google
Mortgage Loan Calculator (how much house can i afford) on September 19, 2023 assuming $400
per month credit card debt, $60,000 down payment, 30 year fixed rate loan in Colorado for good
to excellent credit scores (700 up to 799 in 19 point intervals) and interest rates in the 8.483% to
8.264% range was that a $250,000 annual income was sufficient to purchase properties in the
range from $786,700 to $798,500. The 2022 Larimer County 2-Person 100% AMI is $85,900
(Estes Park Housing Authority, Cutoff Date 6.3.2022) so this income places one in the
$250,000/$85,900 = 2.91 = 291% AMI bracket which is way beyond any incomes covered in the
2023 HNA report (except for the over 200% AMI line in Figure III-26 which in principle could
include such incomes). Indeed, that report is limited to incomes up to 120% AMI except in the
following three Figures:
Figure III-19, Section III, page 16 (200% AMI)
Figure III-21, Section III, page 18 (200% AMI)
Figure III-26, Section III, page 23 (over 200% AMI).
In conclusion, the rezoning proposed in this application does not address any of the housing
needs identified in bullet points 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Page 881
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 14
I remarked above that I would have more to say about the 2023 HNA report and the 2720 figure.
In pointing out in connection with bullet point 5 above that the 2023 HNA is primarily concerned
with AMI ranges up to 120% and therefore has essentially no relevance to prospective buyers
who could afford one of the proposed 1/2 acre lots, I covered what I intended to discuss about
the overall character of the 2023 HNA report. What I would like to do to the 2720 number is
totally shred it, in part, because that is what I think it is worth.
However, I have neither the data nor the time and perhaps not even the skills to do that. Nonetheless
that does not make 2720 totally safe. The fourth bullet point key finding on the first page of
Section III in the 2023 HNA is perhaps worth quoting in full:
2720 units will be needed by 2030 to address the current shortage of workforce housing
and forecasted employment demand. Two thirds of these units are needed at price-points
affordable to households earning less than 120% AMI; 21% are needed for households
earning less than 30% AMI.
This certainly underlines my prior remarks about 2023 HNA being primarily concerned with
workforce and affordable housing and largely limited to less than 120% AMI. It also emphasises
that the report is primarily built around an existing shortage of workforce housing and forecasted
employment demand and those two conditions are often included in references to 2023 HNA.
However, there is a totally different way to approach the need for additional housing, namely,
population change. Long term growth trends project an Estes Valley population of about 12,600
in 2030 up from about 11,900 residents in 2020. This is a 10 year increase of about 700 residents
for a 10 year growth rate of 0.0588 = 5.9% (Section I, page 3).
The overall average household size in the Estes Valley is 2.0 persons (Section I, Figure I-10, page 7)
which means only about 350 additional housing units are actually needed by 2030 to accomodate
700 more people. This is almost a factor of 10 disagreement with the advertised 2720 number
from Figure III-22 (Section 3, page 19). Strictly, it is only off by 7.77 which is still huge. Two
parts of 2023 HNA are in serious disagreement with one another.
Figures I-2 and I-3 (both on Section I, page 3) presents two problems. In Figure I-2 showing
projected and estimated Town and Estes Valley populations from 2000 to 2030 there us an
unexplained step in the Estes Valley population between 2020 and 2021. Thereafter, the total
Estes Valley population appears to increase at a more or less constant rate out to 2030. My efforts
to capture a high resolution screen image from the PDF file of 2023 HNA were unsuccessful. It is
just page decoration.
Figure I-3 gives a 2020 Estes Valley population of 11761 (source: 2020 Census) compared to the
“about” 11,900 residents used in the Estes Valley long-term growth projection above. This is
about a 1.2% difference, small enough to provide some comfort in the starting population growth
value. The more worrisome uncertainties here are the annual growth rates over 10 years. When
assumed to be constant, the growth formula (3) can be solved for 0.57% annual growth. For
reference that basic growth formula is
0 (1 )
N
NP P r= +(3)
Page 882
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 15
where 0P is the initial population, NP is the population after N years and r is the fractional
annual growth rate assumed constant for all years considered (it is not the percentage annual
growth rate). In this case r = 0.005732 to four significant figures and the corresponding annual
percentage rate is 0.5732%. That is good enough to get 12,600 from formula (3) when rounded
to an integer number of people.
I don't know how to reconcile these two predictions of housing need by 2030. We certainly do
not need many more housing units than there are people to fill them. I also do not know what
assumptions go into the long term population forecast except that the references to Figure I-2
(Section I, page 3) are DOLA, ACS 5-year estimates and OPS Strategies which are standard
sources for most of what has gone into 2023 HNA. Population growth forecast probably does not
include “2022 Existing Need” which is a large part of the 2720 figure and which I am inclined to
consider with the same degree of skepticism as the 2720 figure. And certainly there is existing
housing need especially at 80 to 120% AMI or less. Even so the gulf between the two forecasts
seems excessive.
The final paragraph in this section of the Memo at the bottom of page 6 begins, “Development
decades ago and more recent residential development changed conditions in areas directly
adjacent and in the general vicinity of the proposed rezoning.“ The paragraph follows up with
references to the Prospect Mountain PUD Subdivision developed in the early 1980s which is
adjacent to the subject property and to the Peak View and Prospector Apartments developed in
2020 and currently under construction respectively which must be the more recent residential
developments changing conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed rezoning. But note,
there is no claim that any changes in condition actually affected or are currently affecting
the 685 Peak View Drive property. Hence there is no basis whatsoever in these developments,
whether historic or current, to rezone the 685 Peak View Dr. property as requested in the present
application
Just for good measure let me clean up some sloppy distance estimates in the Memo. The
following measurements were made by driving my 2000 Toyota with its trip indicator set to 0.1
mile precision along Peak View Dr. to its intersection with Hwy 7 (officially, S. Saint Vrain Ave.
or Colorado 7), turning north, and driving along Hwy 7 to the indicated Apartment complex. I
make the following definitions:
1. 685 Peak View Drive is defined as the point along Peak View Drive midway between the
intersections with Longs and Twin Drives.
2. Distance to Peak View Apts. is defined as to the the Entry Turn off Hwy 7.
3. Distance to Prospector Apts is defined as to point along Hwy 7 midway between Golf Course
Rd. and Lexington Ln.
Measured distances from 685 Peak View Drive are:
To Peak View Apts = 0.45 miles (compare to 1/3 mile in Memo)
To Prospector Apts = 1.00 miles (compare to 1/2 mile in Memo, as bird flies)
Page 883
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 16
Both of these Apartment developments are along Hwy 7, one of the three primary roads in the
Estes Valley (US34, US36, and Colo 7 = Hwy 7). I consider that Koral Heights and 685 Peak
View Dr. are sufficiently distant from Hwy 7 that there is no impact or affect or change in
conditions on these properties from these apartment developments. Yes, I do hear traffic noise
from Hwy 7 but not from parking lot noise at Peak View Apartments and no known construction
noise from the Propector site.
Somewhat ironically, relative to the numerous prior rezoning proposals, this proposal deflects
many of the neighborhood objections while at the same time voiding essentially all of the
arguments based on affordable workforce housing which derive from 2023 HNA. As previously
noted, for the proposed rezoning, 2023 HNA is simply irrelevant (except for the one small step
argument which I have shown to be no more than a vanishingly small step possibility). That is
where I am leaving it.
There has been no showing of need for three 1/2 acre lots at 685 Peak View Drive and
therefore no basis for the proposed rezoning.
2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is
compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley.
For starters, the exact Development Code text quoted above in bold face begins with development
plan and not concept plan which is what was submitted with the ammended application on June
28, 2023 (4 lots total). The Coyote Ridge Subdivision, also submitted on June 28, 2023 has only
a Preliminary Plat (different in several respects from the Concept Plan — see Appendix D).
Section 3.3.B.1 of the EPDC allows for Staff to waive a development plan “if it finds that the
projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts or other factors associated with the proposed
development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver.” There is no requirement that Staff
provide reasons.
The Planning Department Memo to the Planning Commission on August 15, 2023 with respect
to the Applicant’s June 28th (4 lot) application cites three instances of prior rezoning applications
in which a development plan was waived as providing precedent for exercise of that option (p. 7
of Memo). Two of the three citations (Lot 2 of Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision and “Fish Hatchery”)
are properties acquired by EPHA or owned by the Town and currently under development by or
in cooperation with these agencies. I fail to see any precedent in these two examples for waiver
of development plan for applications from individuals. The other cited example is 507 Grand
Estates Drive in which the Planning Department Staff provides reasons for waiver of development
plan, in this case “because of the small size and limited complexity associated with potential
multi-family development.” In connection with this work I have reviewed a number of rezoning
applications over the past several months and not found any waivers granted without reasons or
explanations. I am sure there are exceptions but the norm seems to be explanations for waivers.
(Comment: I highly recommend looking at the 507 Grand Estates Drive application. Not
everything went smoothly but it seems to me to be an excellent example of what a small scale
Page 884
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 17
application should be in a way that the CMS Planning and Development applications for 685
Peak View Drive provide excellent examples of what such an application should not be.)
In the current Memo from Planning Department to Planning Commission, Staff adds an interesting
new wrinkle to buttress Staff refusal to provide reason(s) for waiver of development plan in this
particular instance. It sounds authoritative, even militaristic: “This type of development does not
trigger a requirement for a Development Plan under criteria within Section 3.8 of the EPDC.” Of
course not! Section 3.8.B and accompanying Table 3-3 establish a requirement for development
plan review, which cannot be waived, for a very narrow and restricted subset of Residential
Development applications based on Ord. 8-05#1. It is mostly limited to applications involving
New Dwellings, Guest Units, RV pad/campsites, and parking spaces. Especially parking spaces
and their orientation.
The failure of Staff to provide reasons for waiver of development plan is profoundly disappointing
in this instance when applicant has been so disrespective of normal procedures, has offered so
many variants of “concept” plans, has generated so much public opposition, and has failed to
have a functional community meeting for the plan that is actually before us at present. As for the
partial overlap of the preliminary plat with a Development Plan, I am not impressed. First of all,
on June 28, 2023 an amended rezoning application (from 5 lots total to 4 lots total) was filed by
CMS Planning & Development which includes a revised concept plan and on the same day the
Coyote Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat was also filed by CMS Planning & Development
with a much more professional site plan prepared by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying and
the two maps do not even agree as to location and layout of the three lots for which rezoning is
requested. Certainly the differences are not huge but they are big enough to easily show up when
overlayed on letter size sheets of paper (see Appendix D). Does anyone at CMS Planning &
Development and the TEP Planning Department really care about what is being requested in this
rezoning application?
With respect to the grading and drainage studies, had the July 3rd neighborhood meeting run a
normal course I would have liked some “layman’s explanation” for why the road is placed in a
trench which looks to be up to 10 feet deep along a significant fraction of its course and also
results in considerable steep grading along the eastern lot boundaries, especially for Lot 2.
Standing at the stakes marking the intersection with Peak View Drive it just doesn’t look to me
like all this digging is really necessary or optimal. It also raises concerns about runoff to
properties across Peak View Drive whose owners have already noted uncontrolled runoff from
the property as it is (December 15, 2022 public meeting). Also, what kinds of assumptions were
made with respect to runoff entering the evaluation basin from the north side of Devon Drive?
There is potentially a significant source of runoff from steep open slopes (i.e., not heavily
forested) up towards the Thumb Open Space. These kinds of questions may already have been
answered in the Peak Runoff Table at the end of the Preliminary Drainage Report. It isn’t Greek
to me but it is also not English.
The remainder of this section of the Memo in support of the second requirement which every
rezoning application must satisfy is primarily about compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan.
To that end my remarks will begin with two quotations from that Plan:
Page 885
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 18
THE VISION
Our community works together as responsible stewards of our irreplaceable mountain
surroundings to support residents and welcome visitors by preserving and enhancing our
quality of life, sense of community, economic vitality, and health of the natural
environment. (p.6)
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
The Future Land Use categories and map are aspirational. They do not alter, circumvent,
or supersede established zoning, recorded subdivisions, or approved development plans.
The zoning map and development codes are not changed as a result of the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan or Future land Use Plan, Categories, or Map. (p.75)
The Future Land Use Map appears on page 74 of the Comprehensive Plan and the Legend on page 75
along with some guidelines to appropriate use and the quoted text above. For emphasis that quoted
text appears on page 75 in an upper case enlarged sans-serif font in a maroon sort of color. My
quotation above omits a final sentence exempting Federal Lands. Except for the first sentence (hence
the italics) the quotation above appears in the lower right corner of printed copies of the Future Land
Use Map with a couple of word changes of no great significance, e.g., the opening pronoun “They” is
replaced by the appropriate subject.
As THE VISION suggests the Comprehensive Plan is idealistic and sweeping in scope. There is no
possible way to realize this town in this valley on this earth in all of our lifetimes. It is a grand
and glorious goal unfortunately limited in many ways, not the least being economic reality.
Without exception, every reference to the Comprehensive Plan on page 8 in the the Planning
Department Memo concerned with the 685 Peak View Drive rezoning application presently
before us is focused on affordable workforce housing, sometimes masked by phrases such as
“the higher density proposed by the rezoning can help this” or “smaller lots with smaller
footprints for developments can help this.”
The point of my 1151 Saxon Court example above (page 13) is that 1/2 acre lots with houses
appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood are at this time totally incompatible with affordable
workforce housing. Recall my distinction between “one small step” and “one vanishingly small
step” in the context of what help rezoning could provide (also on page 13 above, starting at bottom
of page 12). The latter size step is indistinguishable from zero. (Of course there is an exception for
those in the workforce earning at or above 290% AMI.)
Two remarks by the Planning Department Memo author(s) remain troubling: in the paragraph at
the bottom of page 6 and at the end of the middle paragraph on page 8 there is the implication
that the Peak View and Prospector Apartments have initiated a trend towards higher-density
residential housing in the general area of 685 Peak View Drive. Both of these developments are
located in the Future Study Area along Hwy 7 on the Opportunity Areas map (Comprehensive
Plan pages 76-77). As noted above (page 16) in Koral Heights I do hear traffic noise from Hwy 7
but by no stretch of the imagination do I consider the increased residential density from these
properties in any way relevant to the subject property almost a half mile away. To the extent that
the Planning Department thinks otherwise, I consider those thoughts seriously misleading and wrong.
Page 886
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 19
There is a final sense of oddness in the way in which page 8 and the top of page 9 are written in
the Planning Department Memo. The issue before us is the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive to
create three 1/2 acre lots and a service road zoned E from the original 7.62 acres, leaving the
remaining property with its single dwelling unit zoned at its historic E-1 level. These are the
summary paragraphs for the requirement of compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and
existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. The oddness is that every paragraph
and every reference to the Comprehensive Plan is about housing and homes or housing density
and housing affordability. Not a single paragraph, not a single reference, not a single word
addresses the extent to which these three 1/2 acre lots are needed or necessary. And yet that is
the zoning issue before us.
Page 887
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 20
Appendix A. Border Streets for 14 Nonconforming Lots in
Prospect Mountain (PUD) Subdivision
Within boundary street lists, lots are sorted by square footage except for the two largest lots
bordering on Darcy Drive. When lot borders on more than one street, it is listed under primary
street of interest and a note identifies the other street — for example, the first two and last two
lots listed under Peak View Drive.
Lot address indicates this dual relationship (exception is 575A Devon Dr. which borders only on
Darcy Dr. but is part of duplex, the other half of which fronts on Devon Dr which provides the
street address for both units).
Lot Area
Borders Acre Sq Footage Address Type Note
Peak View Dr 0.17 7405 465 Marcus Ln Duplex 1
0.19 8276 469 Marcus Ln Duplex 2
0.22 9388 475 Peak View Dr Single family
0.24 10454 556 Darcy Dr Duplex 3
0.24 10454 558 Darcy Dr Duplex 4
Darcy Dr 0.09 3930 564 Darcy Dr Triplex
0.09 4137 566 Darcy Dr Triplex
0.10 4367 568 Darcy Dr Triplex
0.16 6970 570 Darcy Dr Single family
0.18 7775 572 Darcy Dr Single family
0.22 9565 560 Darcy Dr Single family
0.22 9415 575A Devon Dr Duplex 5
Devon Dr 0.22 9466 565A Devon Dr Duplex
Marcus Ln 0.18 7841 470 Marcus Ln Duplex
Notes:
1. Fronts on Marcus; two story rear deck faces Peak View
2. Fronts on Marcus; two story rear deck faces Peak View
3. Fronts on Darcy, west turn around circle; triangle backyard, about 16 feet along Peak View
4. Fronts on Darcy, west turn around circle; backyard on Peak View
5. Fronts on Darcy; Devon address (B unit fronts on Devon)
Page 888
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 21
Appendix B. Ideal setback distance from Peak View Drive
Measurement methods. I have measured a number of house locations in the Prospect Mountain
PUD along Peak View Dr. using boots and GPS. The pair of hiking boots used for these
measurements are slightly over 12" in length such that 24 steps is 25 feet as measured along a
straight level tape in my garage. The GPS is a Garmin eMap model from about 2000 (pretty old
by consumer electronic standards but treated well and still very functional). Measurements were
made along property boundaries or along street edges. Distances of house features such as edge
of deck or patio or a wall corner were based on my perception of when a line of sight was
perpendicular to path along which I was moving.
Of course none of this compares to survey accuracy or even work with 100 foot tape measure
and access to property. Initial work was all with boots and my visual estimates of elevation
gains. Subsequent work used the GPS for both lateral distances and elevation gains and
corroborated the earlier work surprisingly well. My GPS provides an estimate of point precision
based on location and strength of satellite signals. With optimal satellite positions and strong
signals I can occasionally achieve accuracy down to 12 feet. These measurements were done at
16 to 19 foot accuracy which is pretty good. I try to stay at 20 feet or less when measuring trails.
Absolute elevation is much worse in my experience but when only measuring small changes
such as 10 to 20 feet over short intervals of time I expect the differences to be much more
accurate than absolute elevations above some model sea level and that seemed to be the case.
Overall I would estimate accuracy at about 15%. In terms of lateral location I think one can do
better with Larimer County GIS satellite maps at high resolution.
No one challenged a somewhat bent old man walking along in a funny way (boot toe to heel)
with something in his hand (no doubt a mobile phone) in addition to a note pad and pen looking
intently at various features on their house. In general I felt reasonably safe if there was a Stop
Senseless Re-zoning sign in their yard.
Lot 1 topography. The proposed Lot 1 has a western boundary of 150 feet and an elevation rise
of 20 feet. The eastern boundary is 75 feet in length with an elevation gain of 9 feet. The
southern lot boundary lies about 15 feet from the Peak View Drive pavement edge.
In greater detail, with respect to height above Peak View Drive the southwest corner of the lot falls
on the 7850 foot contour line and the northwest corner of the lot falls on the 7870 foot contour, an
elevation rise of 20 feet (using the No. 2 Plat filed with the August 15, 2023 Planning Commission
meeting packet). Similarly, the elevation rise on the eastern boundary of Lot 1 runs from 7848 to
7857 feet for a rise of 9 feet. The boundary line at the west end of Lot 1 was estimated to be about
2 feet above the Peak View Drive grade which looks to be about what the Plat No. 2 shows. In
other words, only a very small part of Lot 2 is more than 20 feet above the Peak View grade
(estimate of about 100 square feet in extreme northwest corner).
The SW corner of Lot 1 is estimated to be 15 feet from Peak View Drive pavement edge. Since the
west boundary is 150 feet long, the midpoint is 75 feet from the SW corner and thus 90 feet from
the edge of Peak View. Consequently the 100 foot setback line intersects the west boundary 10 feet
north of the midpoint and is parallel to the south boundary and Peak View Dr. That is graphed in
the following figure which shows the pie shape section of Lot 1 which satisfies this ideal setback .
Page 889
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 22
Page 890
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 23
Appendix C. The Role of Commuter Rate in Calculating In-Commuter
Housing Need — Figure III-23 (Section III, Page 20)
The Figure provides the numbers to calculate in-commuter housing needs for the years 2015 and
2022. These housing needs are framed in terms of a parameter called the Commuter rate which is
the ratio of in-commuters to employees and the problems occur when the 2023 HNA report
writer confuses the relationship between the percentage change in housing need over these seven
years with the difference between the Commuter rate percentages for the end point years. The
report writer looks at the 91% change in housing needs (“nearly a doubling”) and the difference
of 13 percentage points in the Commuter rate over this same interval of time (29% – 16% = 13%)
and considers the latter modest compared the almost doubling which it is but errs in supposing
there is “compound effect” at work in this relationship. A careful mathematical formulation of
the relationship will show no such thing as compounding. Indeed, 13% isn’t even an appropriate
number to use for the change in Commuter rate over this interval of time.
First let me begin with a little excercise showing that the percentage difference between two
numbers can vary widely in sets of two numbers which all have the same numeric difference.
Consider the following four sets of two numbers in each of which the difference is always 13 but
the percentage differences depend significantly on the size of the numbers (the symbol means
implies; it is used here to save space rather than suggest profound logic):
Change from 1 to 14 percent change = (14 – 1)/1 = 13/1 = 13 = 1300% change
Change from 16 to 29 percent change = (29 – 16)/16 = 13/16 = 0.8125 = 81.25% change
Change from 50 to 63 percent change = (63 – 50)/50 = 13/50 = 0.2600 = 26% change
Change from 87 to 100 percent change = (100 – 87)/87 = 13/87 = 0.1494 = 14.94% change
With that out of the way we can begin serious work. First some definitions of variables which
will be used in the necessary formulas:
Next we create a number of formulas based on definitions which follow from the nature of the
variables defined above:
%
number of In-commuters
In-commuter housing need (the number of dwelling units)
number of Employees
number of Jobs
Commuter rate as a fraction
Commuter rate as a percentage
0.62 fraction of In
HN
I
I
E
J
R
R
=
=
=
=
=
=
=-commuters who want to live in the Estes Valley
1.84 number of Employees per household
1.20 number of jobs per employee
=
=
Page 891
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 24
(1)
(2)
(3)
From formulas (2) and (3) we can write
(4)
Substituting into formula (1) we obtain the fundamental working expression for IHN
(5)
where is a constant. This is an assumption, namely that the fraction of in-commuters who want
to live in the Estes Valley, the number of jobs per employee, and the number of employees per
household will remain constant over the next 7 years. The 2023 HNA indicates that this has been
the case over prior years. Nonetheless, it is an assumption. Note that IHN was defined in formula (1)
in terms of a constant factor and the number of in-commuters without any reference to the Commuter
rate R. In formula (5) we now have an expression for IHN in terms of a different constant called
and the product of the Commuter rate and number of jobs. This formula will lead to the desired
espression relating IHN and R (along with J) over the 7 years from 2015 to 2022.
We write formula (5) using the simple form twice, once for the beginning year and once for the
ending year. The variables are different for those years so we add 2015 and 2022 subscripts to
distinguish values for those two years. Thus we have two formulas:
(6)
Divide the 2022 equation by the 2015, left side divided by left side and right side divided by
right side with the 2022 variables in the numerator. The constant drops out and we have
(7)
Now I introduce an identity which is valid for any variables x1 and x2 such that one can add or
subtract the variables from one another and divide them by one another. For numbers this always
works (except for division by zero and, I suppose, in pathological cases only mathematicians can
%
0.62
1.84
1.20
and 100 100
HNI I
JE
I IRR R
E E
=
=
= = =
e j
e j
1.20
RJI RE= =
0.62
1.20 1.84
HNI R J RJ==
×e j
22 22 22
and HN2015 2015 2015 HN20 20 20
I R J I R J==
22 22 22HN20 20 20
HN2015 2015 2015
I R J
I R J
= ×
Page 892
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 25
imagine) and for variables referring to real world quantities, the measurement units must be the
same. This may seem pretty pointless but it will get us to where I want to go.
(8)
Now the fun begins. In formula (7) there are three factors of the form x2 /x1, one factor for each
of the three variables IHN, R, and J. Apply this identity to each of these factors replacing the
simple ratios with the more complicated 1+ (x2 – x1) / x1 expression on the right hand side of
formula (8):
(9)
Now carry out the indicated multiplication on the right hand side:
(10)
Next subtract 1 from each side to get rid of those terms. Then multiply the R terms by 1 in the
form 100/100 which has the effect of converting Commuter rate as a fractional rate into a
percentage rate. This is not necessary but it converts our final expression into the variables listed
in Figure III-23 which has been our goal (believe it or not).
(11a)
First of all, note that this is an exact expression for the fractional change in commuter housing
needs on the basis of the defining formulas listed at the bottom of page 23 over the 7 years of this
data and yes, there is one more manipulation I would like to make in formula (11a). We can
factor the job percent change of the two places where it occurs to give a better idea of how the
different variable contribute to the final result.
(11b)
Finally put in numbers from Figure III-23:
(12a)
(12b)
12 2 1
1 1
x x x
x x
-
= +
1 1+1+HN2022 HN2015 2022 2015 2022 2015
HN2015 2015 2015
I I R R J J
I R J
---
+=×e j e j
1 1+HN2022 HN2015 2022 2015 2022 2015 2022 2015 2022 2015
HN2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
I I R R J J R R J J
I R J R J
-----
+=++×e j e j
HN2022 HN2015 %2022 %2015 2022 2015 %2022 %2015 2022 2015
HN2015 %2015 2015 %2015 2015
I I R R J J R R J J
I R J R J
-----
=++×e j e j
1+HN2022 HN2015 %2022 %2015 2022 2015 %2022 %2015
HN2015 %2015 2015 %2015
I I R R J J R R
I R J R
----
=+×e j e j
650 340 29 16 7938 7571 29 161+
340 16 7571 16
91.18 81.25 4.847 1.8125 81.25 8.79 90.04
- - --
= +×
= + × = + =
e j e j
Page 893
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 26
Formulas (12a) and (12b) permit us to examine the different contributions to the change in the
in-commuter housing need over this stretch of 7 years. Formula (12a) allows one to confirm that
the correct numbers have been selected from Figure III-23 and formula (12b) shows the relative
contributions more clearly. As common throughout the 2023 HNA report I have converted
output from fractional to percentage change except I have preserved two more decimal points
although I am not sure they are necessarily valid. For example, only the integer Commuter rates
from the Figure have been used and the commuter housing needs have been rounded to what
looks to be values divisible by 10. Thus, even though formula (11) is an exact result, the numbers
from Figure III-23 are not uniformly accurate on either side of the equal sign.
In any event, it is easy to see that the percentage change in the Commuter rate is the dominant
term accounting for about 90% of the increase in commuter housing need in this example. My
reason for rearranging formula (11a) to (11b) is that the first term is the dominant contribution
from change in Commuter rate and the second term is change in job rate times whatever is left
over and placed in the right most large parentheses. The job factor will usually be a relatively
small change because, as in this example it starts off as a relatively large number (here it is about
4.8% which is approximately 6.0% of the 81.25% contribution from Commuter rate changes).
In any event none of this has anything to do with the “modest” 13% difference in the two
Commuter rate figures (29% and 16%).
Page 894
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 27
Appendix D. The Plan Versus the Plat
On June 26, 2023 CMS Planning & Development (CMS) submitted a revised application for
rezoning the property at 685 Peak View Drive in which the number of new 1/2 acre lots was
reduced from 4 to 3 so that there would be a total of 4 lots on the property. Three days later the
Coyote Ridge Subdivision (CRS) Plat was submitted as a supplementary part of the previous
submission. This included a professionally drawn preliminary plat of the property based on the
new 3-lot design.
The purpose of this Appendix is to call attention to the fact that these two submissions 3 days
apart fail to agree on the layout of the new lots and the service road as shown on page 28 in
which the two maps have been adjusted to a common scale and overlaid in Photoshop.
The black lines come from the CRS plat along with the light gray lines marking neighborhood lot
boundaries. The light gray new 1/2 acre lot lines along with Preliminary Concept box and Option 3
hand written box etc. derive from the CMS Plan. I have removed tree locations, some incorrect
label boxes, and the Peak View and Devon roadways from the CMS map. Also lot numbers were
moved to avoid overlapping with CRS lot numbers.
On the CRS map I removed the direction information along lot boundaries (but left lengths in
place) and the 10 foot dashed easement lines along all the new 1/2 acre lots and part way around
the interior of the entire property. All of these adjustment were made in pursuit of clarity.
Absolutely nothing was adjusted along the disagreeing new lot boundaries.
Appendix E. May 7, 2023 CMS Final Concept Plan in Context
Following up on work Larry Bader initially published in a Public Comment dated March 17, 2023
I traced over the Preliminary Concept Plan – Final submitted with the May 10, 2023 revised
application using the Paths feature in Photoshop (about which I knew nothing). Besides providing
nice straight lot boundaries and curved streets a feature available for any closed path is that the
program will count the number of enclosed pixels. Therefore I set the resolution so that 7 pixels
equaled 1 foot in the Van Horn survey provided as part of the Improvement Location Certificate
that accompanied some application packets. A 7 by 7 pixel square should then equal 1 square
foot. From a large precisely defined area my check on calibration gave 48.99 pixels per square
foot which was much better than I really expected.
This allowed me to measure the square footage of every lot (and the roadways) so I could
compare lot acreage with lots in the Prospect Mountain PUD provided on the TEP-GIS part of
the map shown on page 29. This was interesting but that application was withdrawn before I got
anything written up. While the Prospect Mountain PUD included a couple of lots slightly smaller
than the smallest CMS lot there were many more very small lots in the May 7th final plan than
there are in the Prospect Mountain PUD. And they are all very public, i.e., noticeable. I include
that map with these comments over concern about what may happen to the 5+ acres left as E-1 in
the present application.
Page 895
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 28
Page 896
John Ward Letter Objecting to Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive 29
Page 897
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Good morning , Jonathan. I have received your detailed letter. Thank you
for providing such detailed information.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com> wrote:
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 898
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:02 PM
To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>
Thank you for your response. It is greatly appreciated. The letter is actually from John Ward. He sent it in error yesterday
to planning
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 12:00 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning , Jonathan. I have received your detailed letter. Thank you
for providing such detailed information.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com> wrote:
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 899
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:05 PM
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
Yes, thank you for forwarding John Ward’s detailed letter.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:03 PM Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your response. It is greatly appreciated. The letter is actually from John Ward. He sent it in error
yesterday to planning
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 12:00 PM Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> wrote:
Good morning , Jonathan. I have received your detailed letter. Thank you
for providing such detailed information.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com> wrote:
Opposition letter from John Ward, 1420 Juniper Drive,
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning
To: Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
PDF attached.
You can respond to either address.
Ed's letter just arrived here but I will let you take care of my letter.
Thanks, John
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 900
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 901
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 902
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 903
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 904
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 905
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 906
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM
To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmarchink@estes.og" <pmarchink@estes.og>, "mcenac@estes.org"
<mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>,
"cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, Town Clerk
<townclerk@estes.org>, Susan Ward <js.ward900@gmail.com>, Susan Ward <sewptr44@gmail.com>, EP Peak-View
Community <ep-peak-view@gaggle.email>, EP Peak-View Community - Administrator <ep-peak-
view+admins@gaggle.email>, Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hauger <tspjoha@gmail.com>
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded and
said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for reducing
the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
Page 907
Public Trustee <publictrustee@estes.org>
Re: Question on 685 Peak View
1 message
Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:02 PM
To: Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com>
Christy,
I have not had ex-parte communications regarding 685 Peak View. Thank you for checking.
Mayor Koenig
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:00 PM Christy Jacobs <cj@ap-tm.com> wrote:
I was told by Frank Theis the Town wants High Density housing.
I ques oned him at this last Final Prelimary Plat for his subdivision on who is the Town?. He responded
and said the Town Board.
Have you been talking with Frank Theis or anyone at CMS or the Town Staff?
If so, this is Quasi-judicial!
He also has men oned to someone in our neighborhood that Dir. Garner was pushing for the highest
density with him. Also when is downsized it, he also stated that the Town was upset with him for
reducing the number of housing units.
Sincerely,
Christy Jacobs
1655 Twin Dr.
--
Wendy Koenig
Mayor
Town of Estes Park
Page 908