Submit Public Comment

Back to Project

Project

File Number
SF253
Project Name
Hidden Creek Estates Subdivision
Description
Final plat application to create six (6) residential single-family lots. Previously known as "Hay Creek Subdivision Filing 2"
Applicant
Vertex Consulting Services
Project Manager
Joe Letke
Status
Active

Public Comments (12)

Disclaimer: El Paso County cannot verify that any comments or documents were received from a trusted source. Use caution when reviewing comments and documents and do not open any suspicious links.

Add Comment | Support | Oppose (12)

Link Comment by Comment
View OPPOSE
Name: Richard Smith
Date: 1/7/2026 8:52:53 AM
View OPPOSE
Name: MANDA SMITH
Date: 1/6/2026 9:32:46 AM
View OPPOSE
Name: Phillip Drew
Date: 1/4/2026 9:13:58 PM 		I have attached a PDF detailing my extreme opposition to the project.
View OPPOSE
Name: MikeCloutier
Date: 1/3/2026 11:37:51 AM
View OPPOSE
Name: MikeCloutier
Date: 1/3/2026 11:37:29 AM
View OPPOSE
Name: MikeCloutier
Date: 1/3/2026 11:36:51 AM
View OPPOSE
Name: MikeCloutier
Date: 1/3/2026 11:36:24 AM 		My comments are all contained within this attachment. There are 3 additional attachments related to my comments that will be submitted individually as this system only allows for one attachment at a time.
View OPPOSE
Name: Kim D. Pedrie
Date: 12/18/2025 6:04:34 AM 		(SF253/P2413):A member of my immediate family has complex multi-system sarcoidosis requiring periodic infusions and occasional urgent ER evaluation. In this corridor, access is not abstract: regardless of private drives/internal roads, residents must reach Hay Creek Rd and pass the Baptist Rd chokepoint to exit. Any occlusion can delay emergency ingress/egress and medical transport. EPC LDC Chapter 8 is a life-safety rule: once dead-end limits are exceeded, a second means of access shall be provided. Treating the road as “not a dead end” because a plat labels an internal road produces the illogical result that mandatory safety protections can be bypassed by mapping technique while the bottleneck remains. I request continuance or denial/denial without prejudice until the record includes a corridor-wide count of dwellings/lots taking access through the bottleneck, proof of an enforceable second access meeting Chapter 8 if claimed, and an all-hazards evacuation/access analysis. Pro se.
View OPPOSE
Name: Kim D. Pedrie
Date: 12/18/2025 5:47:47 AM 		MAP OPPOSITION (SF253/P2413): Exhibit A shows Hay Creek Valley is single-egress. Regardless of private drives/internal roads, residents must use Hay Creek Rd and the Baptist Rd chokepoint to exit. EPC LDC Ch. 8 is mandatory: if the dead-end limit is exceeded, a second means of access shall be provided. The County cannot call the corridor 'not a dead end' because a plat routes lots onto a newly named internal road. That is illogical: the life-safety cap disappears by labeling, while evacuation and emergency ingress still collapse into the same bottleneck. CO Supreme Court: avoid illogical/absurd interpretations (Mook, 2020 CO 12; Frazier, 2004). I request continuance or denial/denial without prejudice until the record includes: (1) a count of dwellings/lots taking access through the chokepoint; (2) proof of a second access meeting Ch. 8 if claimed; and (3) an all-hazards bottleneck analysis. Without these findings, approval invites C.R.C.P. 106 review. Submitted pro se, in good faith.
View OPPOSE
Name: Kim Daniel Pedrie, Geophysicist.
Date: 12/18/2025 5:34:00 AM 		OPPOSITION (SF253/P2413): Hay Creek Valley is a single-egress corridor: even with private drives/internal roads, residents must use Hay Creek Rd and the Baptist Rd chokepoint to exit. More lots and/or RR-5->RR-2.5 rezoning increases intensity in a fixed funnel without a complete life-safety record. LDC Ch. 8 uses mandatory "shall" language requiring a second means of access once dead-end limits are exceeded; that safeguard cannot be avoided by plat labels or street naming. The CO Supreme Court rejects interpretations that yield "illogical or absurd results" (Mook, 2020 CO 12; Frazier, 90 P.3d 807 (Colo. 2004)). I request denial, or at minimum continuance/denial without prejudice, until the record includes: (1) a count of dwellings/lots taking access through the bottleneck; (2) proof of an enforceable second access meeting Ch. 8 (if claimed); and (3) an all-hazards bottleneck analysis. Proceeding without these findings invites Rule 106 judicial review. Submitted in good faith, pro se.
View OPPOSE
Name: Lahra Drew
Date: 12/17/2025 7:20:36 PM 		I have attached a PDF expressing reasons for concern.
View OPPOSE
Name: Leigh Fodor
Date: 12/15/2025 10:18:21 PM 		Please see attached PDF with my concerns. Thank you.