×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Blueprint Summit Draft_V3 For Staff Review

Please review the Revised Draft 3 document and provide your comments through the comment tool.

Thank you for taking time to review the REVISED DRAFT 3 of the Blueprint Summit Comprehensive Plan!

This site will close on March 21 at 5PM.

How to Review? As indicated on the green bar at the top the document, you can click anywhere on the document to comment. You do not need to register/sign in to provide comments. However, you will be asked to provide your name and email the first time you comment (if you come back at another time, you'll have to add your name and address again). You can view the Table of Contents in the drop-down menu below to navigate to individual chapters or use the search function to find specific sections or topics. Please note that there are questions throughout the document (noted by the ?'s at the left edge of the document) to provide specific feedback on key concepts. 
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Drag
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
AI Search Full Document

AI Tools

Hide

Welcome to your personal document assistant, powered by AI.

You can ask me questions and I will review the document to provide answers with page references for you. Please be patient, it might take a second and note that I might not always get it right - if you have questions it's easy to check the page sources or contact staff to clarify.

Start with a general question and then follow up with additional questions to narrow the focus of the response if needed.

What would you like to know?

Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 3:24PM on page 76

Policy RT-1.6 Preserve access to existing motorized-use trails and roads.
replies

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 3:18PM on page 72

Per the other comments on this.

"Continue development of the emergency evacuation plan for the County, and use it to identify what areas are in need of additional local roadway connections in order to improve community resiliency to emergencies."
replies
in reply to Dalton Mundhenk's comment

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 3:14PM on page 71

"Ensure streets and pathways meet established safety requirements to improve user experience and safety, and accommodate the growing presence of e-bikes."
replies
in reply to Dalton Mundhenk's comment

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 3:12PM on page 71

After looking at this again I think this can stay as it is. This policy doesn't have to specify working with towns as if it's required for the goal we already will.
replies
in reply to Dalton Mundhenk's comment

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 2:59PM on page 56

After reading it again lets get rid of the second sentence.
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 2:48PM on page 36

I like the wording. Still could refer back to this as support for any future PUD amendments that may be necessary, as that was required for the development of the trailhead.
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 2:45PM on page 33

Robert said this is something he heard from people in Montezuma as well. @Simon I think the wording Allison provided is perfect.
replies

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 2:41PM on page 33

Suggested Revision
"This area is also home to many forest service roads that provide vehicular access to backcountry, high-alpine areas. These roads provide important access routes, recreational opportunities, amazing views, and allow us to explore the extensive mining history of the area. Protecting this use is important to this area for both locals and visitors alike.
replies
in reply to Dalton Mundhenk's comment

Dalton Mundhenk Mar 21 2025 at 2:19PM on page 15

Suggested Revision
Add "In environmentally sensitive areas, which require extensive restoration."
Remove sage meadows from this bullet point and just have "In or near open landscapes"
replies

Simon Mar 20 2025 at 7:10PM on page 65

Technical Edit
From SRPC, consider revising the "world renowned tourism".
replies

Jessica Mar 20 2025 at 1:55PM on page 72

This is redundant with the recreation chapter.
replies

Jessica Mar 20 2025 at 1:50PM on page 71

Make broad. For all riders
replies
in reply to Jessica's comment

Jessica Mar 20 2025 at 1:47PM on page 58

Don't delete! Continue to support the goals of the wildlife working group and implement recommendations.
replies

Jessica Mar 20 2025 at 1:47PM on page 58

This already exists. You can delete
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Jessica Mar 20 2025 at 1:42PM on page 57

Check this is in the land use section
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 1:35PM on page 56

I think the first is too specific, but the second is good and supports existing code provisions
replies

Jessica Mar 20 2025 at 1:31PM on page 56

New goal - new developments should avoid all wetland impacts
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Jessica Mar 20 2025 at 1:25PM on page 54

Check for redundancy in the recreation chapter
replies
in reply to Simon's comment

Simon Mar 20 2025 at 1:24PM on page 3

Suggested Revision
nevermind, now the preference is SCOST
replies

Simon Mar 20 2025 at 1:22PM on page 3

Suggested Revision
Prefer OST
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:47AM on page 31

Add providing and maintaining recreational opportunities
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:46AM on page 30

manage user access to and maintain rec amenities?
replies
in reply to Dalton Mundhenk's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:45AM on page 30

This is a good point. The Tenderfoot Mountain and landfill trail systems are an important multi-use recreational amenity in this part of the County and probably should be a 'key consideration'.
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:40AM on page 33

Strongly support this. Very little parking in this area means that public access to vast areas of USFS land is limited.
replies
in reply to Katherine King's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:39AM on page 34

Sorry wasn't thinking about this as the FLUM instead of as a current reflection of ownership, you can disregard. However, may want to consider labeling each of the land use maps as future land use maps for clarity.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:36AM on page 34

Most 'open space' is 'public land'. I wonder if less confusion would be caused by a different/more clear label for each of these, such as USFS land and 'Summit Co Open Space' ?
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:09AM on page 72

Agree this would be a massive undertaking and signs are under many jurisdictions
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:09AM on page 72

You are likely aware that this is already in progress.
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:05AM on page 71

Do we want to add 'public roadways' instead of just County? Thinking about Copper 's traffic issues...
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 11:04AM on page 71

I also think this is especially important in high density neighborhoods/multi-family housing areas.
replies
in reply to Dalton Mundhenk's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 10:02AM on page 69

Agree - please add developing 'and maintaining' paved pathways (they aren't just bike paths) and key trail connections.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:26AM on page 77

Great addition.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:26AM on page 76

Change overcrowding to 'undesirable use'. There are places we want to concentrate use and places that should provide more solitude.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:24AM on page 76

Change to 'mitigate potential impacts...'
replies
in reply to Katherine King's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:22AM on page 76

Sorry for the oversight - disregard all this because of RT-4. Sometimes it's difficult to see everything on the screen at once and put comments in the correct location.
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:20AM on page 76

Agree. Suggest: through interpretive signage and collaborations with partners and municipalities.
replies
in reply to Katherine King's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:18AM on page 76

This is for RT 3.3
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:17AM on page 76

Delete programming. Add recreation management.
replies
in reply to Katherine King's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:13AM on page 76

This would also tie in well to your last action item.
replies
in reply to Jess Potter Forsyth's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:11AM on page 77

I think this is geared towards river, stream and lake access.
replies
in reply to Jess Potter Forsyth's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:09AM on page 77

Fremont
replies
in reply to Jess Potter Forsyth's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 9:08AM on page 77

I also think this could be better suited to the transportation section
replies
in reply to Allison Morton's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:55AM on page 76

I actually think it's better to use the vague 'paths' so that it can accommodate both sidewalks and non-paved paths.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:53AM on page 76

Recommend adding a policy about balancing recreation needs with habitat and sensitive natural area protection. Lots of options to pull from in OSTMP.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:42AM on page 76

Recommend combining 1.4 and 1.5: Improve the Open Space and Trails Department's capacity to adapt to changing priorities and trends through sufficient funding and staffing.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:40AM on page 76

Will the significant route maps be updated and included in this plan? If not, should be a policy added to update them.
replies
in reply to Katherine King's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:39AM on page 76

This is for the Goal - my comment bubble got moved to the wrong place somehow.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:38AM on page 76

Recommend changing to: Enhance recreational opportunities through the development, maintenance and management of trails and trail access points throughout the County.
replies

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:35AM on page 76

Change 'open spaces' to 'public lands' since we mean not just county open space, but all public land in the county regardless of jurisdiction
replies
in reply to Jess Potter Forsyth's comment

Katherine King Mar 20 2025 at 8:31AM on page 75

'the plan directly.'
replies
View all