Blueprint Summit DRAFT Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Blue Print Summit County review. The document is well presented and does a nice job in most areas. However, the plan ignores entirely the rich mining history of Summit County and specifically a property like ours, the Country Boy Mine. For 30 or more years the Country Boy Mine has been providing a cultural, recreational, and tourist oriented center within Summit County on the property of a formerly operating mine. As the new owners, we have been trying to enhance these activities. Many of these activities have been recognized by the Michelin Guide as an outstanding community resource. Country Boy Mine was also designated as “having special historical significance to Summit County” by Resolution No. 94-3. The previous comprehensive plan had an entire element of the plan dedicated to promoting and preserving important cultural and historic resources.

The problem is that your land use plans and this new Blue Print plan don’t have a category for a use such as the Country Boy Mine and no statements anywhere in the plan about recognizing these historic and recreational type uses. The Country Boy Mine property is designated “Ranchette” which promotes only “Single-household, ranches, or agricultural uses with densities of one DU per 5-40 acres” (we are not sure why an “or” is used instead of an “and” which might suggest to someone that only one of such uses is appropriate versus all three).

We believe there should be some greater definition of the types of uses allowed in this category so that it would allow a use such as the Country Boy Mine rather than painting the FLUM with such a wide brush across thousands of acres. The Country Boy Mine property is a unique historical, cultural, and recreational facility that should be accommodated versus being essentially prohibited by the FLUM Map. We understand the FLUM is not “regulatory” but it will be referenced and used by staff and the Planning Commissions when making findings and recommendations thus having essentially the same effect as a regulatory designation.

Please consider adding to the language of Ranchette something to the effect of: Single-household, ranches, agricultural, and other cultural and recreational uses with densities of one DU per 5-40 acres.

Many of the other categories have a more extensive list of potential uses and it would be perhaps more appropriate to list additional uses in the Ranchette Category. We are also not opposed to a unique category that would be used for the Country Boy Mine property and other properties in a similar situation.

Additionally, we are a little confused about the proposed density of “one DU per 5-40 acres.” We realize you are promoting a range of density in this category but we are confused about how that will be interpreted by staff or the Planning Commission on a specific parcel when an application is submitted. How is it decided which properties are considered at one DU for 5 acres and which ones are considered for one DU for 40 acres? Maybe language that describes where each are most appropriate could be added to reduce the guess work by land owners and staff members.

A better idea would be to change the definition of Community Facilities by expanding the definition beyond nonprofit, public or quasi-public use. Why is it important to have a land use category that references ownership versus simply the land use? Most of the uses listed in this category could be privately owned and still be considered a community facility. Take a hospital for instance, there are many privately owned hospitals that we all would consider a community facility. The same might also be true for a private school. This definition should remove the type of ownership and be expanded to include recreational and cultural facilities. The Country Boy Mine could then be designated Community Facilities which seems appropriate to the type of use and its location and surrounding land uses. In should be noted that the only proposed FLUM designation that includes the word “recreation” is the Open Space designation which seems very limiting in a community largely focused on recreation.
- Kaelen Johnson and Mike Shipley

Consider Adding - "Maintaining quality of life for existing residents" as a key consideration. - Dan Cleary

Some residents moved to Summit to avoid densely populated areas, the word concentrated may not reflect the broad perspective of the community. - Dan Cleary

TDR's from the sub-basins should remain in the sub-basin. - Dan Cleary

There needs to be a mix of residential neighborhood types. Not all neighborhoods need to be toghtly packed in. Remember the "missing middle" and higher AMI qualifying properties might reflect a more traditional summit neighborhood like Peak 7, Silver Shekel, Gold Hill or Ten Mile Vista a(as well as others). - Dan Cleary

Ensure that we state that while the county will consider these partners, we will do so while first prioritizing the Interests / Goals / and Values of our residents. - Dan Cleary

Development should be integrated into the topography of the land. As easily buildable land is more scarce, and existing parcels are redeveloped, it will be increasingly important to ensure that development integrates into the natural environment not only for wildlife, but to maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and community. Beware - Don't bulldoze the landscape flat. - Dan Cleary

A critical Policy should be to encourage and support local business both small and mid sized. Small local businesses are part of the community fabric, and as we lose that "funky" independent feel we lose a big part of the Soul of the Summit. - Dan Cleary

The county should consider a limit on the number of ADU's allowed within a certain distance, and also a max number or percentage within a subdivision. The density allowed into existing subdivisions if these were to become widely distributed would change the character of neighborhoods. Detached ADU's can appear nearly as large as the primary dwelling unit and creates the appearance / feel of higher density..Attached ADU's that are large in size can create the feel of a duplex lot. - Dan Cleary

Why are we proposing to revise the fee structure for only ADU's? If a local resident wants to build a home and live full time and work in the community, they should be afforded a similar benefit without having to deed restrict the property. Consider an incentive for such residents that building permit fees be refunded if they live and work in the community for X years - Staff can determine X, but a minimum of 7 years seems reasonable. - Dan Cleary

During discussions about STR regulations, there was community feedback that STR's were a contributing factor into the housing shortage. Advocates for STR lodging argued that the county has a strong demand for lodging as our economy is largely based on tourism. Assuming both of these arguements are true, why is there no incetive to create more lodging in close proximity to resort areas? i.e. North of Breckenridge, near Copper and Keystone - Dan Cleary

I concentrated on this area as this is my home turf. In the introductory paragraph, please note that Breckenridge has historically always been associated with mining. Skiing and recreation are relatively new. Mining has left a lasting legacy of brownfields, mine drainage, and other scars, providing one good reason to keep A-1 land as rural as possible.

I am also concerned about the statement that Breckenridge should be primarily for residential development. Even the people of Breckenridge need auto repair, landscaping, concrete formers, sewer clean-outs, etc. It is short sighted to eliminate these needs. The existing commercial/industrial area east of the 7-11, for example, needs to be maintained and improved. - Leigh Girvin

Policy LU-7.3 creating a new zoning district that is “compatible with surrounding zoning.” I see this as another opportunity for growth creep and up-zonings. No new density should be allowed without a TDR. There are good reasons to keep land more rural and open. Our legacy of mining is one good reason. - Leigh Girvin

Another suggestion: Plow so that trails aren’t blocked. The plan talks about connectivity, but in the winter, the snowplows pile up huge berms of snow at pretty much every trail crossing, making the use of that trail difficult or impossible.
Traffic Management: Consider the use of Artificial Intelligence to improve traffic light functioning and traffic flow; rather than build ridiculous interchanges (such as CDOT has proposed at I-70 and the Dam Road in Frisco), use technology to manage traffic flow better.
- Leigh Girvin

ET-1.4 Carrying Capacity: Yes, we should have done this forty years ago. - Leigh Girvin

H-7 Exemption from TDRs for Deed Restricted housing. Please do not do this. Increasing density only means more people in Summit County that we have to build infrastructure for. At the least, consider the 2-1 TDR exchange that the Town of Breckenridge uses.
Inclusive Zoning section: yes. We needed to do this forty years ago.
- Leigh Girvin

This section does not address that houses that are more resilient and adaptable are more expensive to build. I live in the Wellington Neighborhood and I can attest that the builder used low quality materials. For example, windows: our windows are cheap and not energy efficient. We had to replace almost all the glass in our windows because the film started peeling away. Please address how the community will accomplish both affordability and resiliency. - Leigh Girvin

Add Environmental Education: This goes for visitors especially, but locals need to learn it too. Signs in multiple languages that say things like “Do not pick Wildflowers,” or “Do not carve your initials in the aspen trees.” - Leigh Girvin

Please consider adding a new section: Improve air quality by restricting emissions of pollutants and fragrances from residential and commercial laundry facilities. - Leigh Girvin

Page 41: Disturbance Limitations: I fully support increases in “non-disturbance” areas in construction. This can be implemented now. - Leigh Girvin

Stewarding Natural Resources – intro paragraph: Please add “hiking” to the list of popular reasons why people love living in Summit County. More people hike than mountain bike, and info about hiking is one of the most requested activities by guests. - Leigh Girvin

Implementation Act #1: Recreational Facilities Expansion:
I do not agree with this section to build more field houses, pickleball courts, etc. on County land. This should be the responsibility of the Towns where there is a concentration of people and infrastructure to build such amenities. I can see a desire for “open space” creep, where land that has been protected for open space is taken for built activities. This is not appropriate. - Leigh Girvin

Congratulations to the whole team for creating an excellent Blue Print for future planning in Summit County.

In general, I think it is a well-organized, easy-to-read document that clearly captures the input of the community.

What will be the second language? This is an action item, don't be vague.

Does this mean you will change the building code? But policy HA-1.1 says you will streamline development standards, not add more requirements.

This chapter never mentions the need for housing seasonal employees. This seems like a huge omission for Summit County.

This contradicts police HA-1.1, streamlining of development standards.

So when the price of natural gas spikes and insurance doubles, who is going to absorb these costs? This sounds like rent control.

Please explore options to throw trash in small quantities at drop off locations. Currently, the only place you can discard trash if you don’t have a trash service is at the dump. There should be options for those of us who have very small amount of trash on irregular basis that are closer to where we live. Maybe a collection center per general neighborhood where we can dump small Size trash bags for a single fee.

Dive

Keep density as is. Do not increase to 2-9 DU per acre.

Are there plans to partner with the airports and airport cities to drive collaboration and sustainability in transportation and visitors?

Define regional stakeholders, etc. Who are they? What interest do they have?

Perhaps you can force Vail Resorts and BGV to do this like they have forced extra taxes on the rest of the tax payers.

What is TDR? Spell out the acronyms throughout the entire document.

Why only 5? Where did this number derive from? All this effort in a plan for only 5 ADU's?

Housing insecurity stems from livable wages.

Again please spell out what this charm is and distinct character is exactly and what is the uniqueness? How does it transcend across the entire county even though the towns are vastly different? What are we all supposedly working towards? I don't see it spelled out anywhere. It is a subjective phrase that keeps getting brought up.

Is there a link to feedback the public can review?

It is not livable if people are not making livable wages. If the community wants to thrive it needs to pressure the top job suppliers (Vail Resorts and Timeshares) to pay a livable wage. It is laughable that ski patrol has to go on strike. I am surprised the rest of the crew on the mountain hasn't protested, especially the ski instructors. Oh but maybe because half are J1 visas. This problem should not be put on the backs of taxpayers any longer. Vail Resorts needs to pony up.

Again what is unique character?

Define unique character. This is subjective.

Please list all the dates/times the sessions were offered for feedback. Somehow so many people were not aware. How were these opportunities for feedback communicated/where?

I was today years old finding out about this Blueprint. Poor job of communicating to the residents and overall community.

How are these facts? This reads more like an opinion without actual numbers behind it. I agree there are needs for services for seniors and those should be evaluated. But we have plenty of J1 visa folks here working. Vail Resorts and Breckenridge Grand Vacations/Time shares are paying what dictates who can work and reside here long term.