Clarification, May 24, 2025 11:07 am: Preserve Estes Park’s initiatives submitted to the town clerk for verification of valid signatures cover two separate issues: • Property proposed for rezoning or for a planned unit development. • Elimination of density bonuses for attainable and workforce. One petition calls for two-thirds of property owners within 500 feet, or less from the outermost boundaries of property proposed for rezoning or for a PUD providing written approval of the plan. The second ballot issue would eliminate density bonuses for attainable and workforce housing in RM multi-family residential zoning districts and repeal building height limits.
Two signed ordinance petitions requiring neighbors’ approval on density, height limits, rezonings, and planned unit developments were submitted to the Estes Park Town Clerk’s office on Friday, May 16, one day before the deadline.
Preserve Estes Park, a grassroots organization, filed the citizen initiative petitions on the last possible day allowed for that action to take place.
State law allows 180 days to collect signatures after the petition language has been approved, which occurred eight months ago on Nov. 18. The organization worked to collect signatures over the past six months.
Town Clerk Jackie Williamson now has 30 days to determine whether each petition has the required number of valid signatures – 246 – before sending the issues to the Town Board.
“If the town clerk finds the petitions sufficient, the petitions must be brought to the town board within 20 days for the board to take one of two actions: approve the initiated ordinance and have it codified, or set the ordinance for an election,” said Kate Miller, the public information officer for the Town of Estes Park.
If a special election is held, it will cost Estes Park $35,000, Miller said.
An election must be held within 150 days after the clerk’s office determines that the petitions meet all qualifications.
The number of signatures required is determined by a specific percentage—5%—of registered voters residing in Estes Park, as confirmed by Larimer County Elections, for either or both petitions.
This will be the second time Preserve Estes Park has attempted to impose new restrictions on developments that require zoning changes, planned unit developments, and attainable and workforce housing.
The advocacy organization had a similar initiative on ballots last year. The ballot question failed 928 to 842.
The version now proposed is more restrictive than before. If passed, two-thirds of property owners within 500 feet, or less from the outermost boundaries of property proposed for rezoning or for a PUDs would first need to provide written approval of the plan.
The wording of the 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.”
A new second ballot issue would eliminate density bonuses for attainable and workforce housing in RM multi-family residential zoning districts and repeal building height limits.
The working of that proposed initiative reads: “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.”
PEP supports affordable housing. The repeal of the “density bonuses” is because those have been given to mostly market rate projects, which are far from affordable, and have resulted in very tall and unsightly developments next to single family homes. And, the new proposal is LESS restrictive than the last.. for example, subdivision is not restricted.
Ms. Blackhurst does not miss an opportunity to mention how much an election on the subject of the PEP initiatives might cost.
Her personal feelings on the subject are documented from the previous initiative effort when she expressed her opinion. She is certainly entitled to have opinions.
I am also not questioning the validity of the cost number that she cites. But I do wonder about the inclusion of that information in her article. I believe it shows a bias if the intent is to invoke horror on the part of cost conscious voters.
Here are my questions for the Estes Valley Voice.
How much did the recent Board of Directors election cost the Park Hospital District?
How much did the recent Board of Directors election cost the Estes Valley Fire Protection District?
How much did the recent Board of Directors election cost the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District?
Should the voters be informed of those amounts?
All of those costs were met by public agencies. The initiative election is different only in that it is requested by the voters.
Of course, the Town Board can save all that money by simply accepting the initiatives into the Code.
Preserve Estes Park (PEP) supports all types of housing within existing zoning.
Zoning laws exist for a reason.
The 2 Citizens Ballot Initiatives have been very well received by Citizens.
The Initiatives offer Citizens a say in the Development process that they have never had.
Thank you.
I just received an email from the Town of Estes Park about the Development Code Update process. There will be numerous opportunities for public input starting in June and continuing throughout the next year. I’m concerned as to why we’re allocating staff time and tax dollars to this initiative now, especially when these same topics will be addressed during a comprehensive development code rewrite.
The town is required to take the action it is taking because of the citizen initiative rules. Once a petition is submitted the town clerk is charged with verifying that there are sufficient signatures of town residents. If verified, the initiatives are required to be submitted to the town board. At that time the town board may only either approve the proposed ordinance or present the proposals to the voters at an election. The election must be held within a specified time frame from the board’s action. In this circumstance there is not a scheduled town election within that time frame, so this would be scheduled for a special election.
The initiative is to implement homeowner protections as soon as practical. The comprehensive development code rewrite will take a very long time.. perhaps a year or more. In the meantime, developers are marching on with applying for buildings, and each one could have a significant impact on the homes nearby. The current code gives owners next to developments very little power over what gets approved.