“We’re doing great,” says Kristine Poppitz, head of efforts by Preserve Estes Park, a citizen advocacy group, to gather enough voter signatures so the town board will either voluntarily restrict some development in the town, including curbing the use of bonus densities and allowing building height variances for attainable and workforce housing, or ask voters to decide the matters in a special election.
Just before the holidays, Poppitz distributed packets of petitions to individuals interested in helping to obtain the necessary number of signatures from Estes Park voters for the measures to come before voters.
According to Poppitz only 246 signatures—five percent of the number of registered voters in the Town of Estes Park—on each of two separate petitions are needed. More than 400 signatures were submitted the first time the group submitted a similar initiative to the town a year ago.
While there is no rush, the clock is ticking on a May 17 deadline for the organization to submit the needed 246 signatures to Town Clerk Jackie Williamson for certification, the next step in the process of potentially seeing the initiatives placed on a ballot.
“There is no April ballot this time. Also, we’re collecting for two initiatives this time. We’re hoping as soon as possible. We’re making sure we’re dotting all the Is and crossing the Ts,” said Poppitz.
Research following a narrow defeat in April showed voters were somewhat confused by how passage would immediately affect the Town’s code changes. “We decided to break it into two and it’s been very well received,” Poppitz said.
The wording of the first proposed initiative reads, “All applications, motions or requests made for all re-zonings and/or all Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) in Estes Park, Colorado will not be approved without written approval by the record owner(s) of the subject property/properties and two-thirds (2/3) of the record owner(s) of all properties five hundred feet (500′) or less from the outermost boundaries of the subject property/properties.”
According to Poppitz any individual or business developer proposing a plan that requires community development department approval would be required to submit a form to collect the required signatures prior to moving forward.
While the rule proposed by PEP will be associated only with town ordinances dealing with land use, Poppitz was clear in explaining that the language regarding the 500-foot limit refers to property whether inside or out of the limits of the town.
“The way it’s written, the advance approval includes property owners from both” inside the town limits and those in Larimer County, Poppitz said. “This is all about property rights.”
The second initiative is shorter. It says, “Estes Park Development Code Section 11.4 – ATTAINABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS and associated building height limits in § 4.3 – Residential Zoning Districts are hereby repealed.”
“Preserve Estes Park is fully supportive of attainable and workforce housing,” said Poppitz, but the PEP is concerned about building heights and densities in residential zoning districts.
“Based on what we’ve heard from citizens height and density in residential zoning districts are the problems,” Poppitz said. “The biggest thing is Prospector Apartments. We hear that citizens are not happy, and don’t want that density or that height all over town,” she said.
A year ago when the PEP initiative was defeated, critics of the group’s efforts pointed to the process already in place to screen developments through both a land use planning commission and the Town Board.
PEP hosted a one-on-one drop-in open house Saturday afternoon in the Hondius Room at the Estes Valley Library to connect with community members interested in discussing initiatives. People were able to sign the groups petitions to support the ballot initiatives and pick up yard signs and informational flyers. One PEP organizer estimated about 20 people attended.
Those wanting more information about PEP can check out the group’s website. The next meeting of the group will be Jan. 16 at 5 p.m. at the American Legion and via Zoom.
I was misquoted and my words were misrepresented.
I requested a retraction.
I understand that a reporter may not use “…every word spoken…;” however, when important words are left out it is an inaccurate reporting of the facts.
Reporting only that as “Preserve Estes Park is fully supportive of attainable and workforce housing,” is incorrect.
What is correct, and what I said in a phone interview with Ms. Blackhurst, is that “Preserve Estes Park is fully supportive of attainable and workforce housing within existing zoning.”
My direct quote was cut off at the reporter’s discretion.
Preserve Estes Park’s paid newspaper advertisements, materials that we share, and what we verbally share with our Citizens and Visitors, clearly state this.
I am beyond upset, disappointed and disrespected.
The facts, as news should be, were not reported.
This is just one example of that not being the case.
I have already spoken with Sr. Editor Blackhurst and have contacted Estes Valley Voice Owner, Ms. Patti Brown as well.
With thanks,
Kristine L. Poppitz
I’d be willing to bet that a lot of these same people just voted the straight Republican ticket this last November because they want deregulation and big government out of their lives. However, they want the authority to tell you what you can and can not do with your own property. Isn’t that interesting? I get the feeling that they are perfectly comfortable with development as long as they don’t have to look at it, and it’s only affordable to the ‘right’ people.