Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2023-09-26 Public Comment 3Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Kristine L. Poppitz 650 Devon Dr For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Please consider how a "temporary turnaround," as noted on the Plat, can be approved by the Fire District and Public works Dept. Please consider who will maintain the sidewalks, the handling of any easements and the spite strip for the subject property. Please deny this application. There are far too many unknowns. From the Staff Report: Public Works provided comment pertaining to EPDC Appendix D, E. 3, “...cul-de-sacs, and dead-end streets shall be prohibited where terrain permits street connections. Such a connection shall be established when any future development is proposed. The proposed cul-de- sac is temporary but will be constructed to public street standards in anticipation of future plans for additional development.” Comments submitted for the Estes Park Planning Commission Meeting on 08-15-2023 Page 1 Don Smith Jan Smith 1435 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, Colorado 80517 August 15, 2023 Estes Park Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission Members: We write in opposi�on to the rezoning request involving 685 Parkview. As you arrive at your decision on this proposal, you have a responsibility to balance the general health, safety and welfare of the public with the private property owner who is seeking this unprecedented change. In the case of the 685 Peakview proposal, the current property owner knew what zoning was in place on the parcel when he purchased it. He knew, or should have known, that those of us who live in this neighborhood bought our proper�es knowing that the zoning in this neighborhood was E1. He knows of the overwhelming opposi�on of the neighborhood property owners to his proposal. In short, he bought a property knowing full well that he had taken a risk in terms of introducing a major “in fill” project within an area that knows of no such development. What this comes down to is priori�zing or rewarding the risk one developer took versus the interests of a neighborhood that is not well suited for a huge development. Of course, he is beginning with just a few houses, but the precedent will be set for further development. If this proposal is approved, then what is to keep several neighborhood owners with 1-acre E1 parcels to combine our proper�es into a larger parcel and then come to the planning commission seeking the same treatment so that they could propose an even bigger project? This is a short-sighted proposal that is likely to have major unintended consequences. Sincerely -Don Smith & Jan Smith Page 2 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Kristine L. Poppitz 650 Devon Dr For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. By law, the "changes in conditions," as required by the EPDC, have to be since the Code was adopted. The housing was in short supply then. It is about the same as now, yet, 685 Peak View Drive remained zoned E-1. It has never been anything but E-1 zoning and never should be otherwise. With the Applicant's own admission, there are no changes in conditions in the areas affected, the surrounding neighborhood. Yes, more people have moved here; however, they are moving into the County area. The Town chose to separate the Town and the County,. How can you point to changes in conditions in the County part of the Valley? I agree that the Code applies to the Valley, since the County adopted it; however, this proposed re-zoning and/or Subdivision does not require County approval, only Town. I thank you, again, for listening to me, a Citizen. Page 3 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. James Poppitz Devon Drive For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. The 685 Peak View Drive application literally has thousand of people against it and a few for it. Isn't it the responsibility of the Planning Commissioners to represent the "Will of the People?" Page 4 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Jed Eide 607 Longs Drive For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. This rezoning only benefits one man. Over 1,500 have signed against! Listen to the people. Page 5 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Grant & Carol Delbecq 1335 Koral Court, Estes Park, CO 80517 For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. The rezoning application being discussed for 685 Peak View is a radical departure from the current Land Use Plan, just approved a month before the owner’s purchase and we vehemently oppose this rezoning proposal! I can’t see how the county and city could consider approving a re-zoning, essentially ignoring a 2 year process based on broad input from the city, county, consultants, and Este’s residents. At a cost of $300k to the town and county and participation from over 50 city and county representatives and consultants and over 50 stakeholders, this process was very comprehensive and broad reaching. Key points: • Land Use Plan just approved zones this property at 1 home per acre • Change is NOT consistent with town’s commitment to local residents when they built or bought • Proposal doesn’t support affordable housing, homes would require minimum household income in the range of $150k • High density housing should be closer to downtown area Page 6 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Ronald R Houlette 1221 Prospect Mountain Road For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. I am a strong proponent of affordable/attainable housing. I do not believe the rezoning of this property will address the issue of affordable/attainable housing. Page 7 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Mary Greer 1515 Prospect Mtn Rd For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Dear Planning Commission and Town Board: I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. The current zoning of the area clearly restricts development to one acre per home and should remain so for future development. Page 8 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Stephen Wende 641 Longs Drive For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. The cutting edge idea in every large city in the country is to radically increase density in order to create new housing for the workforce, less affluent, and missing middle. A good idea, though, out of place, becomes a bad idea. The proposed development meets NONE of Estes Park's housing needs. 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. The proposed E zoning is by Estes Park definition 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. 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. Density for the sake of density can help a big city, but not automatically a small one. Please follow Estes Park regulations and keep the character of Estes Park intact. Page 9 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Rick & Vick Papineau 1711 Dekker Circle For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Honor our zoning! Stop unsustainable development!! The high-rise, high-density housing on Hwy 7 & Lexington is a travesty!!! Who’s paying for the infrastructure??? Soil and water erosion has been ongoing!!! Please let the taxpayers know TOEP time/staffing hours, mailings, etc regarding this 685 Peak View project that has been going on for months in various plans!!!! Page 10 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Diane Caddell 721 Longs Dr. Estes Park CO 80517 For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. We bought our home knowing 685 Peak View Drive could be able to be made into at least 5 more vacant lots plus one lot with the existing home, not significantly downzoned. I have no issues with this parcel to have 5 more homes on it plus the existing home as that complies with zoning. Why is it now being changed, not for affordable or workforce housing but for greed Page 11 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Rezoning 1 message Earl & Earlene Knox <Earlearlene@beyondbb.com>Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 4:10 PM To: planning@estes.org Rezoning of 685 Peak View would certainly be a HUGE “Change of conditions”. This Rezoning would be a HUGE mistake. It would change our whole environment and ruin the ambiance of a beautiful neighborhood. We are completely AGAINST this rezoning. Please do not allow this to happen. Estes Park needs to stay a beautiful place to enjoy and live- not a growing community of condos and closely built houses on a hillside. DON’T RUIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD as you have done on Highway 7. Think about it!!!! Sent from my iPhone Page 12 8/14/23, 7:24 PM Gmail - 685 Peak View rezoning application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=87c892ca92&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946&simpl=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946 1/4 Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com> 685 Peak View rezoning application Ed Scarvalone <edscarvalone@gmail.com>Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 7:24 PM To: planning@estes.org My wife and I are residents of the Koral Heights subdivision, located just north of the 685 Peak View property. We object to Planning Commission staff’s recommendation to approve Frank Theis’s latest revised rezoning application. We object for several reasons, described more fully below: · this rezoning is plainly a stalking horse for a more ambitious – and radical – rezoning of the entire 7.62 parcel, along the lines of Theis’s earlier proposals for small (5,000 sf) building lots. · Theis’s track record of certifying facts in his rezoning applications that are untrue, and his inability to respond to neighborhood concerns in a respectful way, make him an unsuitable candidate to entrust with responsibility for development of this scenically and environmentally valuable parcel. · Planning Commission staff have misconstrued the legal standards for rezoning property under the Development Code, cherry-picked facts supporting their desire to have more housing constructed; and exaggerated the benefits of adding 3 building lots to the Estes Valley housing supply. Background: This appears to be the third or fourth rezoning application filed by Theis (the “Developer”) to rezone the 685 Peak View property. Overwhelming community opposition, as well as the collapse of his claim that the resulting houses would be “affordable, workforce housing,” forced him to scale back the radical rezoning proposal he originally floated. · On November 3, 2022, the Developer filed his first application. It sought to change the zoning from E-1 to R-1, resulting in 39 lots, of which 38 would be tiny-sized lots (5000 sf). · The Developer filed a second application, file-stamped March 15, 2023 by the Planning Commission, proposing 30 lots. · On or about May 10, 2023, the Developer filed a new concept plan and new statement of intent proposing 26 lots. · On or about June 7, 2023, the Developer filed an application, dated May 30, 2023, seeking to rezone 2.39 acres for four ½-acre lots. · On or about June 26, 2023, the Developer filed an updated/amended application, dated May 30, 2023, seeking to rezone 1.75 acres for three ½-acre lots. Several of the Developer’s rezoning applications (Nov. 3, 2022; the June 7, 2023 submittal dated May 30, 2022; and the June 26, 2023 submittal dated May 30, 2023) contained Certifications that the information presented was “true and correct.” Among the pieces of information contained in each of these applications was the certification that site staking had been completed. Thus, the Planning Commission’s application form asks: Site taking must be completed at the time application is submitted. Complete? __Yes __No Page 13 8/14/23, 7:24 PM Gmail - 685 Peak View rezoning application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=87c892ca92&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946&simpl=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946 2/4 In each instance, the Developer answered “Yes.” This certification was false. The Developer admitted at the July 3, 2023 neighborhood meeting that the staking had only been done earlier that very day. (Video of meeting, at 6:53) (“How and when was that done?” “Today”). The Developer conceded that the certification on his May 30, 2023 application was false, and explained that the staking “was scheduled to occur” on May 30 but did not occur until July 3. When confronted about the falsity of his certification, the Developer responded flippantly: “Do you want to come back next month?” (Video at 8:22). He walked out of the meeting shortly thereafter. At no point did the Developer attempt to justify the false certification on his earlier November 30, 2022 application – nearby residents confirm they never saw any staking of the 39 lots proposed by that application – or suggest that he’d made any attempt to correct the false certifications that he previously made in his applications. Objection #1: The Developer’s ultimate plan is to put tiny houses on the remainder of the site. While the Developer professes not to have any current plans to rezone the rest of the 685 Peak View property, that claim is not to be believed. If the current rezoning application is approved, he will undoubtedly seek a rezoning to add additional, probably smaller houses on the rest of the property – as he originally sought in November 2022 – claiming that the three ½-acre lots on the western edge of the property serve as a transition to the smaller lots. Simply put, the current proposal is a “stalking horse” – a false pretext concealing the Developer’s real intentions. Approval of the current rezoning application will certainly be followed by a new application resurrecting his earlier, and more radical, proposal. Objection #2: The Developer’s careless disregard for the truth makes him unsuitable. As shown above, the Developer’s applications certified, falsely, on at least three occasions that the property had been staked when, in fact, it was not. He certified that the information contained in the application was “true and correct,” when it was not. When confronted with this erroneous certification at the July 3 neighborhood meeting, the Developer was neither contrite nor apologetic. Instead, he was flippant about the certification process (“Do you want to come back next month?”), and walked out of the meeting. I invite the Commission to watch the video in its entirety to witness the Developer ’s evasion of the truth, and his resentful attitude towards the questioning of my neighbors and the very process of answering concerns voiced by the public. The Developer’s cavalier regard for the truth and his disrespectful, unprofessional attitude should disincline the Commission from approving the application. The rezoning process obviously relies on the truth and accuracy of the information provided by applicants; to turn a blind eye to the Developer ’s conduct here would send a signal to other developers that the Commission is indifferent to applicants playing fast-and- loose with its procedures. Moreover, if the Developer cannot be trusted to be straight with the Commission during the application process, and respectful of the process of responding to community concerns, then he should not be trusted going forward. Objection #3: Staff’s good intentions led them to improperly apply the Development Code. The Staff recommendation is based on two conclusions required to be made under the Development Code: that the rezoning is “necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected,” and that the proposed development is “compatible and consistent with” the policies and intent of the Estes Forward Comprehensive Page 14 8/14/23, 7:24 PM Gmail - 685 Peak View rezoning application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=87c892ca92&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946&simpl=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946 3/4 Plan. See Estes Park Development Code (“EPDC” or “Development Code”), § 3.3D. The first conclusion rests on a mistaken interpretation of the Code; the second conclusion rests on a cherry-picking of the Comprehensive Plan provisions to support a predetermined result. “Change in conditions in the areas affected.” Staff interpret this phrase to refer to “the Estes Park area” generally, rather than the subject parcel and its immediate vicinity. See Staff recommendation memo at 4. But Staff provide no authority whatsoever for their interpretation. They cite no language or textual authority within the Development Code that supports their reading. As several other commenters have noted, the Staff’s interpretation makes no logical sense. It would justify wholesale ignoring of the Town’s zoning plan – a zoning plan that Town residents have justifiably relied upon in making their housing (and house-purchasing) decisions for many years. Moreover, Staff’s analysis of “changed conditions” relies heavily on the asserted need for “workforce housing” or “reasonably priced housing,” see memo at 4-6, without acknowledging that the Developer’s rezoning proposal will not lead to either “workforce” or “reasonably priced” housing. There is nothing in the Developer’s application – not one word – guaranteeing that a single unit of affordable workforce housing will be built. No enforceable commitment exists. And the realities of housing construction say the opposite. As several objectors have noted: construction costs virtually guarantee that the houses will be priced at a level well beyond anyone’s definition of “affordable workforce housing.” Finally, to the extent that Staff argue that the perceived housing shortage, alone, justifies the rezoning, see memo at 6 (rezoning “can be one small step to alleviate the housing shortage”), it defies logic to think that adding three single-family lots will address the perceived shortage in any meaningful way. The only way that statement can be true is if Staff already anticipate approving the inevitable future proposal from the Developer seeking to provide additional lots on the remainder of the property. “Compatible and consistent” with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s analysis of this factor cherry-picks one of the Plan’s guiding principles – the need for housing opportunities to support a year round community – while ignoring the other eight principles. See Staff memo at 8 (citing Comprehensive Plan – Guiding Principles, page 7). Among the guiding principles ignored by Staff is the need for “Balanced and managed growth that enhances quality of life, preserves local character, conserves natural resources and wildlife habitat,” and for a connected community linked “by multi-modal transportation options.” (Plan, page 7). The proposed rezoning conflicts with both of these guiding principles. As several commenters have noted, the rezoning conflicts with the housing character of the adjacent neighborhoods, and would compromise an area used by a variety of wildlife, at all times of year. In addition, the site offers no “transportation options” whatsoever – one of the Comprehensive Plan guiding principles that Staff choose to ignore. The site is not pedestrian-friendly: there are no sidewalks, and the nearest supermarket (Safeway) is an hour’s walk away, according to Google maps. The nearest stop on the Town’s seasonal summer shuttle service (the Silver Route) is at The Pines apartment complex, more than a 15-minute walk away. Moreover, Staff’s analysis of the Plan’s housing principle relies heavily on the perceived need for workforce housing. See Staff memo at 8 (quoting Plan’s discussion of “new housing” to meet “the needs of the workforce and families”); id. (“increase affordable options for all income levels”). But the three new houses Page 15 8/14/23, 7:24 PM Gmail - 685 Peak View rezoning application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=87c892ca92&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946&simpl=msg-a:r-3271296580871069946 4/4 resulting from the Developer’s rezoning proposal are not required to be “workforce housing” or affordable, and the market economics virtually guarantee that the houses will not be affordable for the workforce that the Staff are concerned about. Conclusion: Staff’s desire to address the workforce housing shortage in the Estes Valley is commendable. But the Developer’s rezoning application doesn’t address the shortage. If the rezoning goes forward on such a flimsy rationale, it will signal to developers who want Staff approval of their rezoning approvals that all they need do is invoke the magic words – “workforce housing” – and they will get their way. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard on such an important land use issue. Edward Scarvalone & Hillary Weisman 1340 Juniper Drive Estes Park Page 16 We have too many different proposals to count them all. The current one is deceptive to me as creating 3 1/2 acre lots with a street to Town specs for 3 lots versus a shared driveway tells me that there is something else coming after this. Why is that not addressed? Why would a temporary fire department turn around be proposed but is actually not part of the land to be rezoned? A paved turnaround is usually required. How can you only rezone a portion of the entire lot and not the rest? It should be a subdivision plat for what is proposed. And all citizens deserve to know what is planned for the remainder of 685 Peak View as it exists now. The Housing study that calls for 2700 more housing units is a flawed study as mentioned by Scott Moulton at the Housing Authority. As I understand it there are about 5,000 units now, a 50% increase, the roads and infrastructure won’t be able to handle it. Safeway can’t handle the needs of the community and there is not another 5 acre site for a major grocery store, also other support businesses are already over loaded to where you can’t get contractors, service people etc. which is why prices have skyrocketed. Peak View can’t handle any more traffic, not to mention drainage issues. There is rumored to be a 14 acre parcel in the county just north of the Mary’s Lake Campground that is talked about being annexed and multi-family housing planned for there also. Again way too much traffic for Peak View, add in the campground traffic with RV's and campers etc. it will be dangerous to say the least. With approximately 500 units in various stages right now it is my professional opinion the market will not absorb that many units. Rental apartments possibly, but workforce housing is not doable with today's interest rates. Wildfire with all due respect is a good project but not affordable as a 3BR unit over $500k a payment with 20% down would be pushing $3,500 per month plus HOA fees with today’s interest rates. Some of the Wildfire units are leased at $2,500 to $2,800 per month for the 3 bedroom unit. With workforce housing it should be worked with a local lender and as part of the deal buy the interest rate down. We want to encourage buying versus renting whenever possible as renting does not give workforce people any security or stability as the rents will keep going up. Workforce and affordable housing should be in the core areas, there are parcels on either side of the Wonderview entrance to the Stanley which are Town owned and would be perfect places for multi-family housing, also on Dry Gulch adjacent to the old crossroads building, 4 + acres owned by the Town could also be multi-family housing. There are other parcels as well. Placing multi-family housing in those areas with compatible zoning with the immediate area is crucial. How can Estes Park add that much more housing units without damaging the character of Estes? Most residents do not want to see all these multi-unit buildings, as it impacts the wildlife and peaceful nature of the Estes Valley. STRs per the Town's own study, if all went away would only see a small portion become long term rentals, if all the STRs Page 17 were stopped it would crush the local economy that has depended on tourism since Joel Estes arrived. If all the STR’s ceased to exist almost 8 of 10 would be sold as second homes and only occupied less than a month per year and not rented in any way. We should be able to balance the rights of those who have worked hard, lived here and want to be on larger lots while balancing the housing needs of the future, all multi-family housing should be done in already high density core area that have walking access to schools, services, shopping and employment. . Growth needs to be done in a sensible manner balancing the rights of all of our residents, not just develop any larger parcel anywhere in the Town or Valley. Some along corridors where there is already density are well suited for more dense development, the 685 Peak View lot is not suitable for more density as it is adverse to the immediate area. Respectfully Submitted David Caddell Page 18 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Bart Dannels Lots 1 and 2, 1650 and 1652 Twin Drive, Estes Park For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. As you prepare your recommendation for the Town Board for 685 Peak View, whether it is for or against approval, please consider and include comments that reflect: 1) This development has little to no impact on the workforce housing situation because it is not “affordable” to those who need it. 2) Understand this proposal is very likely the first step to subsequent ones to develop the remainder of the 7.62 acre 685 Peak View lot. Although not part of the current proposal under consideration, future development of this area should be addressed in this proposal as a concern for both the Town and County. 3) Recognize this development for what it is – one for developer/owner financial gain - despite “for approval" comments that it is being developed for the good of the community. Page 19 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Carol Peterson 570 Devon Drive For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. To the Planning Commission: I am totally against any re-zoning of 685 Peak View. There is no need to re-zone this property. There has been no change in condition. The current zoning is in keeping with the neighborhood as it was originally envisioned. The latest plan for three 1/2 acre lots submitted by Mr. Theis is an obviously a segway into more dense development that is unacceptable for many legitimate reasons. As an owner of a home adjacent to 685 Peak View I do not want to see this beautiful property over developed. Re-zoning is unnecessary and unacceptable. Thank you Carol Peterson Page 20 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 Town 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 qua lifying change of condiƟons be proximate to the area to which the rezoning proposal applies. The Town’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. If the Commission finds otherwise, however, I would offer an alternaƟve. The applicant previously proposed rezoning the enƟre parcel to 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 deliberaƟve 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 subsƟtute. The current 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 material 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. Thus, my proposal: If the Commission is supporƟve of the requested density increase on the western porƟon of the parcel, I would request that the Commission’s recommendaƟon for approval 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. Page 21 The Staff report notes exisƟng lot size requirement 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. In reading the Code, I see nothing that would prevent the Commission from recommending, and the Trustees approving, a zoning change that is inconsistent with that requested by a property owner. Indeed, a rezoning is simply a legislaƟve acƟon that is undertaken at the sole discreƟon of the Trustees, with public input of which the property owner’s request is one kind. 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 22 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Andrea Hauger 1525 juniper drive For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Objection I am opposed to the false and fraudulent rezoning proposal by the greedy liar Frank Theis. The 685 peak view proposal is in violation of current code and town plans. Greedy developer desires for more money are not a change in conditions THE ONLY ONE WHO BENEFITS IS ONE VERY MONEY HUNGRY PERSON ,NOT THE TOWN OR IT'S CITIZENS. Page 23 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Jonathan Hauger 1341 koral ct For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. I am opposed to the false and fraudulent rezoning proposal by the greedy liar Frank Theis. The 685 peak view proposal is in violation of current code and town plans. Greedy developer desires for more money are not a change in conditions. Page 24 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> No changes in conditions for the areas affected per the Applicant himself 1 message Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:01 PM To: Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org> Please listen to the Applicant, in his own words, state that there are "none to the surrounding neighborhood," when asked what are the changes in condions in the areas affected, the surrounding neighborhoods. Please note that this requirement of a changes in condions in the areas affected..." is requirement item #1 in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) Review Standards for Re-zoning (https://drive.google.com/ file/d/1SlxOSyW1Flue1sekfBSjvuvCP-FGp6xZ/view). NO changes in condions in the areas affected exist for the Applicant as confirmed by the Applicant. Thank you for listening to the Applicant's own words in denying the re-zoning and the proposed subsequent Subdivision applicaons. With thanks, KLP Full Time Resident https://vimeo.com/830176680/8801c6c291 . WHAT ARE THE REVIEW STANDARDS? Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the standards listed below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC: 1. The rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; Page 25 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Vehement opposition to proposed 685 Peak View re-zoning and Subdivision 1 message Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:19 AM To: Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org> If Town Staff want to follow the newly adopted Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, then, please follow it. I thank you, in advance, for denying this proposed re-zoning and Subdivision applicaon. With respect, Krisne L. Poppitz Full Time Resident/APO (Adjacent Property Owner) in the "...areas affected..." Page 26 Page 27 We are writing to express our strong opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive.  The application does not meet the approval criteria and does not fit the area it is proposed for.   The first review criteria in the Development Code is that “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected.” This change is not necessary and even the developer has admitted that there has been no change in conditions in the areas affected. As a result, what the applicant requests is obviously illegal spot zoning. The only change in the area is that the land was purchased by the Developer who, himself, is trying to change the conditions in the neighborhood. At one of his own Neighborhood meetings, Mr. Theis, when asked, admitted correctly that there have been no changes in conditions. There have been no changes in conditions in or near the 7.62-acre parcel since 1999 when it was zoned E-1.   In his application, the developer has not cited a single change unique to this neighborhood nor has he attempted to support this request with any of the provisions of the Master Plan. This is because the application does not advance the goals or follow the policies of the master plan. But demonstrating compliance is his responsibility and the planning commission should not fill in blanks for him or guess what the relevant changes are. We trust you to apply and follow the adopted criteria that affects and protects all of us, current residents, elected and appointed officials, guests of the Town, and yes even developers. Mr. Theis has worked for the Town in various capacities and knows many Town Officials. Wouldn’t giving him preferential treatment have the appearance of cronyism, instead of meritocracy? To give one of your friends carte blanche for his desire to increase his profit ten times over at the expense of every resident in the area would be outrageous. Every voter in this Town and every visitor will see a Town Government that would grant favors to the privileged few to the detriment of the majority.    To allow that parcel of land to be rezoned would be a huge, irreversible mistake. Economic conditions make any new single family detached housing construction impossible to meet any affordable, attainable or workforce housing. They could only be “attainable” to investors and to well-off individuals as a part-time, summer vacation home.    You must see that projects at Wildfire and Fish Hatchery have failed to meet the stated goal of affordable, attainable or workforce housing.      As you are surely aware, there is a large segment of citizens who oppose this rezoning request, as reflected by the many letters of opposition and over fourteen hundred signatures on the petition. Please consider the will of the people when making your decision.     All zoning is a promise by the Town to the people, that their investment and peace in their home will not be bartered away. We implore you, do not betray that trust. Tim and Norma McKern Page 28 640 Devon Drive Estes Park Page 29 August 14th 2023 RE: 685 Peak View Rezoning Dear Estes Park Planning Commissioners, I’m asking you to deny the rezoning request of 685 Peak View because both the Developer and Staff Report have failed to provide a factual basis under the required criteria for the rezoning in MULTIPLE amended statements of intent. The Planning Commission under CO Law is to serve as a fact-finding board to make recommendations to our town board and I urge you to do so. The Housing Needs Assessment or HNA is referred to 9 times on pages 4 & 5 alone in the Community Development staff report for this proposal, yet it is referenced 0 times in the criteria required for rezoning 3.3D Standards of Review of the Estes Valley Development Code and further I didn’t see it in the comprehensive plan as an action. I don’t believe the intent of the HNA is to justify a change in condition on every parcel of land in the Estes Valley as it’s being utilized for in this proposal but regardless it’s not a regulatory document. The comprehensive plan does state in H.1.A to “monitor the housing need”. As I write this there are daily price drop alerts in Estes Park housing realty, a growing inventory of for sale signs, apartments on highway 7 under construction, and workforce housing wildfire homes sitting for 90+ days as evidenced by any realty website. Are we monitoring the housing need? Does the HNA supersede zoning? In an e-mail dated 11/14/22 the PC requested that during the 11/15/22 Special Meeting for the new comprehensive plan clarity to specifically address the concerns of public comment related to suggested ¼ acre lots in suburban estate and zoning. It was then stated during the presentation on 11/15/22 PC Special Meeting, “the comp plan is an advisory document and zoning is the law”. Therefore, if you recommend this rezoning, you are recommending a change to the law. So please give us facts for changing the law because both community development and the developer have failed. There is nothing affordable in this rezoning, specifically when you have such a large percentage of E1 bordering the property which would drive up the price. Staff references properties on Highway 7 as comparison, Highway 7 an arterial road is NOT Peak View a rural designed collector and Longs Drive, there are major differences most notably accessibility and walkability which in reading the comprehensive plan would align with where to densify. Page 30 A Yes vote on this indicates there is a change in condition throughout the town for all rezoning since it now implies the “affected areas” are the entire town? It’s precedent setting and there is a disregard for many parts of the comprehensive plan. Clear and specific verbiage not open to interpretation is on Page 75 of the Comprehensive plan. “LAND USE CATEGORIES AND ARE ASPIRATIONAL. THEY DO NOT ALTER, CIRCUMVENT, OR SUPERSEDE ESTABLISHED ZONING, RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS, OR APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS. THE ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODES ARE NOTCHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, CATEGORIES, OR MAP. FEDERAL LANDS, INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR TOWN AND COUNTY ZONING MAPS." There’s NO change in condition in the affected area of peak view and longs drive the only change recently in this area is the purchase and preservation of the thumb open space less than ¼ mile from this property and a backdrop which did note in the purchase reports provided by Terracon and CPW the abundant wildlife usage and “corridor” to the lakes which is completely ignored by town staff report simply stating some deer frequent the area, wildlife, view corridor and natural environment are listed abundantly in our Comp Plan. The Applicant then states, “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.” This is unclear and open to interpretation in a court of law. H2E utilizes the word explore not give, I urge you to not give privilege to one landowner while giving detriment to over 90% of APO’s and over 1500 signatures opposing this before you who signed, provided their names, addresses and phones numbers unlike other surveys lacking that transparency. Please deny this application for failure to prove changes in conditions in the areas affected and inconsistencies within the comprehensive plan. I thank you for your time and commitment, Stephanie Ahrndt-Pawson Meeker Drive – Full Time Resident/APO IN THE AFFECTED AREA Page 31 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 32 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 33 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 34 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Letter of Opposition 1 message Timothy McKern <tjmckern@comcast.net>Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 8:12 AM To: planning@estes.org We are writing to express our strong opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. What the applicant requests is obviously illegal spot zoning. There have been no changes in conditions in the areas affected. The only change in the area is that the land was purchased by the Developer who, himself, is trying to change the conditions in the neighborhood. At one of his own Neighborhood meetings, Mr. Theis, when asked, admitted correctly that there have been no changes in conditions. There have been no changes in conditions in or near the 7.62-acre parcel since 1999 when it was zoned E-1. Mr. Theis has worked for the Town in various capacities and knows many Town Officials. Wouldn’t giving him preferential treatment have the appearance of cronyism, instead of meritocracy? To give one of your friends carte blanche for his desire to increase his profit ten times over at the expense of every resident in the area would be outrageous. Every voter in this Town and every visitor will see a Town Government that would grant favors to the privileged few to the detriment of the majority. To allow that parcel of land to be rezoned would be a huge, irreversible mistake. Economic conditions make any new housing construction impossible to meet any affordable, attainable or workforce housing. They could only be “attainable” to investors and to well-off individuals as a part- time, summer vacation home. You must see that projects at Wildfire and Fish Hatchery have failed to meet the stated goal of affordable, attainable or workforce housing. As you are surely aware, there is a large segment of citizens who oppose this rezoning request, as reflected by the many letters of opposition and fifteen hundred signatures on the petition. Please consider the will of the people when making your decision. All zoning is a promise by the Town to the people, that their investment and peace in their home will not be bartered away. We implore you, do not betray that trust. Tim and Norma McKern 640 Devon Drive Estes Park Page 35 Page 1 of 2 11 August 2023 Estes Park Planning and Zoning Department Estes Park Planning Commission Town of Estes Park Trustees Re: Application to Rezone 685 Peak View Drive, Estes Park Trustees, Planning Staff, and Commission Members: This is my third opposition letter to the never-ending saga of the request to rezone 685 Peak View Drive, now aka “Coyote Ridge” subdivision. My other two letters were submitted in April 2023 and December 2022 and were posted in the section for Rezone: 685 Peak View. As with my previous letters, I remain in vehement opposition to this rezoning request. My reasons and justifications have not changed though most applicable to this application is that: 1) there has been No Change of Condition and therefore this change is not necessary, and 2) approving this rezoning constitutes illegal Spot Zoning. Other commentors have put forth additional arguments against this rezoning which I fully support. In a previous letter, I discussed governance, in which I mentioned the Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing project. I would like to point out that the Development Staff recommended approval of Developer Theis’s previous 685 Peak View Drive rezoning application that included workforce housing even after numerous commentors pointed out that the cost of the lots and construction, and of course profits, would not result in a price attainable by those intended. This Development Staff recommended approval was only a few months ago. Now it seems that “the Town” has recognized the realities of the cost of construction and financing workforce housing projects. The Town of Estes Park Public Information Office release of 25 July 2023, Homes at Fish Hatchery Workforce Housing Project Takes a New Direction, included the following: “…Challenging economic circumstances, which have changed dramatically since the development agreement process began two years ago, have made it difficult to keep proposed rental rates affordable while also ensuring that apartments are occupied by members of the local workforce. …” “Since negotiations began, interest rates have more than doubled and construction costs have increased approximately 40 percent. Even with additional financial contributions, including a $2 million allocation from the County’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, the prospective development partners are still unable to reach an agreement that would honor the Estes Park Town Board’s commitment to building housing on the property intended to serve the local workforce.” I am incredulous to believe that Development Staff were not aware of the financial challenges faced with the Fish Hatchery project during the period of the Theis application(s) and yet they still recommended approval. We rely on City staff and YOU to follow the regulations that have been adopted for all of us, not just developers. Again, I repeat that I propose that the Community Development department should be an Page 36 Page 2 of 2 unbiased agency providing an independent, objective review of a proposed project. At present, the Community Development department appears to function as an internal advocate for developers thus depriving the citizens of neutrality in the department’s decision-making process with negative impacts for citizens. This is a conflict of interest and betrayal to the larger community. Citizens should be able to go about their work and lives without having to worry about government agencies, elected officials, and advisory boards (town, county, state or federal) aligning with objectives in a way that is contrary to the regulations which benefit the greater community and its citizens all for the benefit of a single individual or a few businesses. I also again repeat and submit that those advocating, approving, or otherwise supporting this rezoning and proposed development are knowingly, willingly, and intentionally ignoring the substantial impacts to fellow citizens and neighbors by adversely affecting existing property owners who purchased and enjoy their properties based on the current zoning – degradation of property rights and decrease in property value with no compensation. Rezoning contrary to regulatory protections is effectively an Eminent Domain taking but which does not require compensation for the financial damages inflicted nor for the loss of enjoyment of an owner’s property. To cause such harm without consideration of the intent of the regulations and the negative impact to neighbors is morally bankrupt. There is no merit in this rezoning request nor is there a “need” which will benefit anyone but the Oligarch Developer and “Town” without harming others. Keep in mind that denying this application is not a zero-sum proposition. A denial does not stop or hinder the Town’s seeming desire for continuous, unabated development. The Developer can still profit handsomely by selling lots or building in accordance with the currently zoned category, E-1. Additionally, the Town coffers will swell from the increased tax revenue if the property is developed as zoned. Town leaders and Commissioners can still take credit for being “business friendly” and “jobs growth” oriented from the “newest subdivision” and future construction. Town Administration and Development staff will benefit from continued job justification and career advancement from the need to review and approve building designs and perform inspections for code compliance as well as the increase in town/valley population. Please follow the regulations and deny this application. Thank you for considering my opinions and comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or to engage in a healthy debate. Regards, Joe W. Dowdey 1220 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, CO 80517 joedowdey@yahoo.com Mobile: 970-779-1308 Page 37 Estes Park Planning Commission Public Comment Form The Planning Commission wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Address * Radio Button Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Planning Commission:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Tom kaszynski 610 Devon Drive For Against Neutral 685 Peak View Rezone If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Frank bought the property knowing it was zoned for one home per acre but he knew all along that he could get some “ favors” from those on town boards and commissions etc. It would be too bad for everyone except for Franks pocketbook to grant him his and others wish. Everyone should go back and listen to what he has proposed or said in any of his neighborhood meetings and as one person who personally knows the sellers who said that “ they were devastated” as to what Frank was planning on doing. None of his changes of conditions or affordability or reasonable or missing middle reasons play a part. Why destroy a nice neighborhood? Ask him for a plan for 6 more house and reject his current request. I’m definitely opposed. Stick to the plan Tom kaszynski 610 Devon drive Estes park Page 38 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> 685 Peak View 1 message Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 8:30 AM To: Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, franklancaster@estes.org, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, Matt Comstock <mcomstock@estes.org>, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org> 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 39 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Vision for our Town 1 message Jed Eide <jeide@alliarch.com>Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 12:23 PM 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> 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 40 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Opposition to Rezoning 685 Peak View 1 message Tamara Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:49 AM 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> 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 41 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> 685 Peakview 1 message Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 3:35 PM 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> 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 42 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> What is the real problem? 1 message Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 2:05 PM 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> 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? 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 Page 43 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 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 Page 44 Estes Park, Colorado Dan Scace 860-912-5344 (Cell) 970-480-1819 (Home) Be a Good Wingman Page 45 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Opposition to ANY re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive 1 message Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 4:04 PM To: Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org> To All Concerned:    I stand in opposition to Frank Theis’ re-zoning application for 685 Peak View Drive.    It is an obvious example of spot zoning and failing to meet the necessary required changes in conditions requirement of the EPDC. Our retained Attorney is ready to litigate this, if needed.    It took years and a lot of effort and money to establish our Town’s Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Park Development Code. Why would our Town Trustees support this re-zoning so that one Developer can make more money selling three lots for second homebuyers?    This application is not affordable, not workforce, not attainable, not acceptable!  It is a deceptive attempt for a future high-density subdivision.    I thank you,  James Poppitz  Full-time Estes Park Resident  Page 46 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> 685 Rezoning.................problem with documents as filed Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 4:27 PM To: franklancaster@estes.org, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, jgarner@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> 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 47 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 48 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 49 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> 685 Peakview 1 message nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:36 AM To: planning@estes.org, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org 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 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 51 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive 2 messages 'Walter Borneman' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 7:44 PM Reply-To: Walter Borneman <walterborneman@mac.com> To: planning@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org There have been many versions of the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peak View, but the threshold question— indeed the only legal analysis to be applied in arriving at a decision—is whether or not there has been a change of condition to require, or even make desirable, any requested change. Changed conditions elsewhere in town do not provide the legal right to re-zone an area that has not had any change in conditions. What would be the purpose of zoning districts in the first place if the character of individual districts could be so cavalierly dismissed? The very definition and purpose of zoning is much narrower than the view that an entire town is the geographic scope when considering changed conditions. Please look to the character of the neighborhood surrounding 685 Peak View and deny any change in the current zoning. Walt Borneman 572 Darcy Drive 'Walter Borneman' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 7:44 PM Reply-To: Walter Borneman <walterborneman@mac.com> To: planning@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org [Quoted text hidden] Page 52 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Concerns about Planning Staff regarding 685 Peak View Rezoning 1 message Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 12:41 PM To: franklancaster@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, dkramer@estes.org, planning@estes.org, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcomstock@estes.org 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. 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 Page 53 I am writing in continued opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View! I attended the neighborhood meeting on July 3 concerning the rezoning of 685 Peak View. At that meeting, it was acknowledged that the required forms were not completed truthfully or accurately. The town has rules and regulations in place for everyone to follow. That has to include everyone from the Town personnel to the rezoning applicant. 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. We were told that another neighborhood meeting would follow, per regulations, after the required forms were completed correctly and submitted as per town regulations. Why has nothing been done to address this situation? I would urge the town board to reject this application for rezoning! Thank you for your attention to this matter, Jan Scott 512 Devon Dr. Estes Park, CO Page 54 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Opposition to rezoning 685 peak View Drive 1 message Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 2:45 PM To: franklancaster@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, dkramer@estes.org, planning@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org, mcomstock@estes.org 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 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 Page 55 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> please post to Public Comments, 685 Peakview rezoning 1 message Terry Rustin <terry.rustin@gmail.com>Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:27 AM To: planning@estes.org 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. In a public meeting on July 3, 2023, Mr Frank Theis, a 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.'” 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 this action, 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, identified as “weird” by the developer. Page 56 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. Sincerely, 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 Page 57 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> A new issue with 685 Peak View rezoning request 1 message Laura Rustin <laurarustin@gmail.com>Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:11 AM To: franklancaster@estes.org, Dan Kramer <dkramer@estes.org>, "To: Community Development" <Planning@estes.org>, khazelton@estes.org, Marie Cenac <mcenac@estes.org>, Barbara MacAlpine <bmacalpine@estes.org>, pmartchink@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org 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 3. 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 58 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Estes Park neighborhood zones 1 message T&J White <tjwhiteassoc@gmail.com>Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 5:09 PM 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> To: Mayor Koenig, Trustees, Community Planning Department, & Planning Commissioners We are wring to urge you to DENY any changes to neighborhood zone regulaons. 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 polluon. 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 construcon 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 opposion. Please, do your job and protect Estes from over development and rezoning requests. With respect – Joan & Tim White Estes Park, CO Page 59 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 60 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 61 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 62 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 63 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> opposition to rezoning 685 Peak Drive 1 message Laura Campbell <l.v.campbell@comcast.net>Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 9:55 AM To: "Planning@estes.org" <Planning@estes.org> I am writing to convey my strenuous opposition to rezoning 685 Peak View Drive. A change of zoning would financially benefit only the owner/developer of this property while harming the surrounding wildlife, property owners, neighborhood, community and town as a whole. It clearly is not being developed for workforce or affordable housing purposes. Please deny this application in support of surrounding residents who broadly reject this proposal. Thank you, Laura V. Campbell 1221 Prospect Mountain Road Page 64 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Oppose Any Rezoning on 685 Peakview 1 message Stephanie a <stephanie.327@hotmail.com>Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 9:04 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> Thank You. 685.pdf 206K Page 65 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive 1 message 'David Edwards' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 6:20 PM Reply-To: David Edwards <durangodave@mac.com> To: planning@estes.org Hello, We purchased our home in Koral Heights in 2019 and are preparing it to be our full-time home when I retire in a couple of years. I have followed the re-zoning issue for 685 Peak View Drive with interest. First let me say that I am absolutely on board with workforce housing, such as the projects ongoing on St. Vrain near the golf course. This is appropriate and sorely needed. That said, the proposed redistricting of 685 Peak View is nothing of the sort. In fact, it would radically alter the character of the neighborhood to benefit exactly one person. This re-zoning is indefensible in my opinion. It is overwhelmingly opposed by all the property owners in the area, including us. I urge you to turn down any redistricting for this property. It’s unnecessary and unneeded, and it would negatively impact the entire area. There is no justification for it. Please reject any re-zoning of this property. Sincerely, Dave and Carolyn Edwards 2239 S Joliet Way Aurora, CO 80014 1141 Koral Court Estes Park, CO 80517 972-345-5983 (mobile) Page 66 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Re: 685 Peak View Rezoning Application by Frank Theis 1 message 'Patience Ellis' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:50 PM Reply-To: Patience Ellis <pellis50@aol.com> To: planning@estes.org, wkoenig@estes.org 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 67 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> 685 Peakview 1 message nancy curtiss <nancyjo1977@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:16 AM To: planning@estes.org I am once again requesting that the proposed re-zoning of 685 Peakview be denied.There is no criteria that allows any application to change the zoning of this property. There is no change in condition, NONE. A development plan for this property is NOT compatible or consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in any fashion. The current zoning of one home per acre is appropriate, and I would not oppose a development that facilitates 6 lovely new homes with current zoning. This would ensure the neighborhood is not destroyed and would, indeed, meet the Comprehensive Plan that the Town of Estes Park has in place. Please remember that the residents have rights. We vote. I beg you to do the right thing and deny any re-zoning of 685 Peakview. Period. Nancy Curtiss 1263 Juniper Drive Estes Park resident of Estes Park for 35 years. Page 68 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Opposition to any rezoning on 685 Peak View 1 message Daniel Scace <daniel.scace@sbcglobal.net>Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 9:09 AM To: Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org> Cc: Tami Scace <tami.scace@sbcglobal.net>, "Kristine L. Poppitz" <kjpoppitz@msn.com>, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org> 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 69 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 70 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> No rezoning of 685 peak view drive 1 message Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 7:25 AM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Planning Staff: Once again I write in opposition to having any part of 685 peak view drive rezoned. There are no changes in conditions as stated in the application How many times is Frank Theis going to resubmit his plan in hopes of getting it passed? It should be pretty clear from the letters of opposition that nobody wants anything but the zoning as is. Why destroy a neighborhood? Why not ask Frank to show his plans for a layout of one home/ acre? Tom kaszynski 610 Devon drive Estes park Sent from my iPhone Page 71 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Opposition to 685 Peak View or is it Coyote Ride rezoning????? 1 message Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 4:35 PM To: planning@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org 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 72 June 26, 2023 Re: 685 Peak View Rezoning Dear Planning Commission and Town Board: I am wri ng to express my strong opposi on 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 condi on 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 Comprehensive Plan. Given those two condi ons, any rezoning by a local government can be considered spot zoning if the change benefits a single individual. Note that over 90% of the adjacent property owners and over 1,300 others have signed pe ons objec ng to any rezoning at 685 Peak View. Further, let’s dispel any no on that the proposed rezoned property will provide any economically a:ainable workforce housing. With lots selling at $200,000+ and new residen al construc on priced at $400+/SF, new houses on this property will sell for over $1,000,000 – a price not a:ainable to families making 150% or less of the median county household income. Very truly yours, Jed Eide 607 Longs Drive Page 73 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Vehement Opposition to proposed Coyote Ridge subdivision and ANY re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive 1 message Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 3:42 PM To: Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org> I am wring in vehement opposion to the connuing trail of "opons" proposed by Mr. Frank Theis, for the parcel at 685 Peak View Drive. The latest submission of the Preliminary Plat of the proposed Coyote Ridge Subdivision is not what the land is zoned for. E-1 is one home per acre, period. There have been no changes in condions in the areas affected since this land was originally zoned. This lack of changes in condions in the areas affected does not fulfill design criteria #1 of the Estes Park Development Code design criteria: hps://drive.google.com/file/d/1SlxOSyW1Flue1sekfBSjvuvCP- FGp6xZ/view It is that simple. The suggesons, by the Developer, of workforce housing, aainable and/or affordable housing are not menoned in this applicaon. E-1, period. With thanks, Krisne L. Poppitz Full me Estes Park Resident Page 74 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> 685 Peak View 1 message Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 2:19 PM To: Town of Estes Park - Planning Division <planning@estes.org> Theis' application for rezoning describes re-zoning part of it, but there is no way that would occur unless he subdivides first. And, a re-zoning does not approve, or is conditioned on, a development plan. Once he re-zones it, he can go ahead and apply for the 39 homes, all the while claiming he is just going to put in 4 homes on part of it. What a great public relations move, though. Rebecca Urquhart Page 75 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Frank Theis is spinning that Wheel of Fortune again. 1 message Jackie Adams <jsa.dna@gmail.com>Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:47 PM To: planning@estes.org, jwoeber@estes.org, jgarner@estes.org, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, mcenac@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, bmacalpine@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org 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 76 I am writing in continued opposition to the rezoning request of 685 PEAKVIEW. I was in opposition to Mr. Theis’s previous request and continue to oppose this rezoning request. The current proposal being shown to the neighbors is for 4 single-family homes, not allowed with the current zoning. We continue to hear this is “what the town wants him to do.” As you know, this property is zoned E-1, with one-acre minimum lots allowing 7 homes to potentially occupy that space. I am not opposed to this but would welcome the land being developed as it is currently zoned. I have been trying to understand Mr. Theis’s reasons for changing the current zoning. “WHAT ARE THE REVIEW STANDARDS? 1. The rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected” The area he is trying to rezone has had NO CHANGES IN CONDITION. That being the case, is this not “SPOT ZONING”? “Spot zoning is prohibited in Colorado on the theory that a local government cannot act merely to benefit a single landowner, but must act to benefit the general public.” Is the general public only the folks looking for attainable, workforce housing? If rezoning is to happen because the town wants more affordable workforce housing, this will NOT produce housing that will fit into that category. Affordable workforce housing seems to be the catchphrase. What do you consider affordable for the workforce making a basic wage? It seems these proposed units would sell for $500,000 +. Many signatures have been collected in opposition to this request so I believe the answer to that question is a big NO. It will not benefit the general public. I urge the committee to reject this request for rezoning. Thank you for your time. Jan Scott 512 Devon Dr. Page 77 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Adamantly Opposed to Frank Theis Application for Rezoning 685 Peak View 1 message Michelle D'Arcy <mdrc9901@gmail.com>Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 4:36 PM To: planning@estes.org Dear Planning Staff, I wrote an extensive letter in opposition of Mr. Frank Theis attempting to rezone 685 Peak View. I oppose Mr. Theis's current application to rezone, dated: 6/7/2023. THIS CURRENT application for rezoning 685 Peak View should not be approved. I continue to have the same strong feelings about being vehemently against this rezoning. This is NOT the area to do this in. Besides this property not being a safe corner, and being in a very busy area with wildlife, and tradespeople going up and down that road to include town personnel who several times a day use Peak View as a quick means of getting around town versus getting gridlocked in the heart of our town. St. Mary’s Lake has a large volume of RV vehicle traffic and town utility company large trucks go up and down this road all the time. Mr. Theis, having no consideration for his neighbors' safety, is again attempting to add an inordinately large amount of homes to this small area which is again a HUGE safety risk for our community. When those of us are being told to evacuate again, due to a pending fire, (The Mayor has indicated, “It is not “if” this happens again but, “when.”) the congestion of this area will render some unable to get out. Our town is small and no one is going to pay special attention to Peak View when a fire comes upon us. The location of Mr. Thies property is in the wrong area. It will be a bottle- neck no matter how he designs roads. It is TOO SMALL of a property for so many houses. I have sat in numerous community meetings with Mr. Theis. I have observed a man who is retiring, is not going to be my neighbor, someone having almost a sense of “entitlement” to operate above the law, reaping one last large financial profit in an area that is not appropriate for this. He has given our community mixed messages, played “dumb,” and has disrespected this whole process. Mr. Theis, in our meetings with him, already indicated that there was “NO CHANGE” in current conditions. Therefore, this man is not above anyone else with this “Spot Zoning” attempt. This is illegal in Colorado. Frank Theis needs to build the additional 6 homes on the land he purchased. Trying to ramrod a rezoning of this nature is unethical and it destroys communities when one is able to gain for their own selfish purposes. We already KNOW that these parcels will not be for “Workforce Housing.” This is not affordable. How did you get to this point, planning staff? We are so very disappointed by your willingness to help this man feed his deep pockets in lieu of doing what is right to keep us safe in this community. I was so very disappointed that our own town attorney for the planning department minimized and ignored any statements regarding what constitutes “Spot Zoning.” Something is very wrong with this kind of reaction. His "lack" of responsiveness to his community was alarming to me. My take on the formal meeting a few weeks ago that many of us attended was that the delay in the board making a decision has only benefitted Mr. Theis to prepare yet ANOTHER illegal request to rezone. This is so very disconcerting that he has most likely, based on this last meeting we had in Town, advised to put a “new spin” with another dialed down attempt to re-zone. Here he is, back with another manipulative move to Spot Zone. No one again, should be allowed to manipulate communities of people who live off of Peak View for their own financial gain. Mr. Theis has not operated in good faith. To now take a smaller portion of this parcel and again, attempt to ramrod it through for approval is a sign of someone who will stop at nothing to methodically financially benefit in an illegal fashion. I am so very dismayed and continue to be concerned with your staff's actions regarding Mr. Theis's applications. Here is what is concerning about your staff: To set a community hearing for Mr. Thies’s current application a day before the 4th of July is disrespectful to our community. As a Veteran of the Armed Forces, I am appalled that you would actually do this as a staff, knowing that there would, of course, be low numbers of us in attendance due to people traveling or having loved ones visiting with them on a vital holiday. Page 78 In closing, I am adamantly against Mr. Thies re-zoning 685 Peak View Drive. Sincerely, Michelle A. D’Arcy 1421 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, CO 80517 303-427-9328 Page 79 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Opposition to having 685 peak view drive rezoned 1 message Tom Kaszynski <bionicsoriginal@hotmail.com>Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 9:18 AM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> Planning Staff: Why doesn’t Frank just stick to the code as is? There are no changes in conditions. NONE Frank keeps talking about the fact that he built the house on Saxton Court for $ 274/ sq ft yet for the asking price of $675K for 1230 sq ft that price is around $500/sq ft. He also said he built it for a client yet it’s still not sold. Who would pay that kind of money? Would you????? I oppose any kind of rezoning on this property. Why not just tell him to develop it as it is already zoned? If he doesn’t want to do that then why buy it in the first place? Tom Kaszynski 610 Devon drive Estes park Sent from my iPhone Page 80 Karin Swanlund <kswanlund@estes.org> Vehement opposition to ANY re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive 1 message Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:50 AM To: Community Devleopment <planning@estes.org> I am wring to express my connued vehement opposion to ANY re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive. I am surprised by the connued aempts by the developer, Mr. Frank Theis, to submit drawing aer drawing of a variety of proposed site plans for this ongoing re-zoning request. Since December cizens have seen over five (5) different plans proposed by Mr. Theis. We have seen images of six (6) homes, the only opon which is allowed per exisng zoning and which I fully support, to images of 39 homes. We have seen proposals containing no workforce housing, no aainable housing, and no affordable housing to a request for 26 homes to be workforce deed restricted. That is all gone. We are now being shown a proposal for four (4) single family homes, not allowed per exisng zoning, on a private road to nowhere. Mr. Theis connually states that he is "...doing what the Town wants..." We have grown red of asking "who is the Town?" "What do they want?" We have been "told" workforce, aainable and affordable housing. I agree as long as the homes are truly aainable and/or affordable and in the best locaons with close proximity to services, with access to local transit, close to the jobs... The most recent applicaon is none of these. The Town does not want, or need, the proposed 4 new homes, that, IF approved, on ½ acre lots would likely start at a minimum of $650,000. The Town has an abundance of similar homes. Over 40% are second homes. How many applicaons will Mr. Theis submit, and how many will the Community Development Department entertain (It is a good thing for solely Mr. Theis that applicaon fees are presently ½ price), before he realizes that what is wanted is what the land is, and always has been, zoned for. One (1) home per acre. Period. The signatures of over 1,200 cizens on a Peon opposing ANY re-zoning of this property, represent this. As I wrote in December and as I affirm now, I am in vehement opposion to ANY re-zoning for the property at 685 Peak View Drive. I thank you, Krisne L. Poppitz Full Time Estes Park Resident Page 81