HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT 5 Draft Plan Public CommentsDate Name Comment Address and How
10/21/2022 Kent Smith
We just finished re‐reading the comp plan draft and noticed that one
thing that is not mentioned in any sector is solid waste.
We think it is critical to include: innovative and comprehensive regimen
for solid wasted diversion.
There are a number of places where this issue could be inserted and is
most critical for the preservation of our ecology and our economic
sustainability. We mentioned this in the meeting but are not seeing it
in the draft. Without a plan we are at the mercy of our visitors.
We have discussed this with Travis as well as it being the frequent
subject of Judi's columns.
Add Goal I3: Establish an innovative and comprehensive solid waste,
recycling, and composting management system.
1. The Town and County support solid waste diversion, reduction, and
reuse programs and policies.
2. The Town and County inform and educate the public and visitors
about waste management programs and practices throughout the
Estes Valley.
10/22/2022 Frank Theis
On pages 19‐22, under recommended actions by both the Town & County, I think
continuing to work with the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition should be included for the
Wildlife Plan Update, Wildfire Mitigation on private lands, and Flood Mitigation &
resiliency. On a related note, I think the Watershed Master Plans, which were developed
immediately after the 2013 flood by the Town & EVWC for Fish Creek and Fall River, and a
couple of years later for the Big Thompson by EVWC, should be mentioned as guiding
documents which have been adopted by the Town & County (and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board which paid for most of the work).
Added Estes Valley Watershed Coalition to NE 2.E, NE 3.B, NE 3.C, NE
4.A, NE 4. F, NE 4.G, NE 5.A, and NE 5.D
Fish Creek, Fall River and Upper Big Thompson Plans were added and
linked on page 2.
10/19/2022 Barbara MacAlpine
While reviewing the Comp Plan draft for the nth time, I had a few questions that you
might address. They are more about form than substance. I wanted to get your opinion
before making a suggested change on the online version.
At the beginning of the document, members of various boards, commissions, and
committees are listed, including those who are former members. Shouldn't Janene be
designated as a former member of the EP Planning Commission? Same question about
the EVPAC: Olivia Harper is no longer listed as a board member on its website; I believe
her term was slightly extended through the summer but has now ended. It would seem
consistent to add "former member" after her name.
Here's another name question: Rosemary Truman is a member of CompPAC. She is listed
as Rose Truman. Is that her preferred name? I've only spoken with her a few times
(unfortunately) and don't really know what she likes to be called, but it would be a shame
to get it wrong.
Finally, there is an occasional reference to the Town of Estes Planning Department, which I
always find confusing. Isn't Planning considered a division within your department? Am I
being picky? I'm wondering if there might be a better way to reference that unit.
Added (Former Commissioner) after Janene Centurione's name
Added (Former Member) after Olivia Harper's name and added Scott
Stewart (new member according to EVPAC website)
Changed to Rosemary (not Rose)
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
Overall health care in general – hospital has not really been addressed. Should there be
more expectations about the hospital and how health care fits in long term? Identifying
available land – should it be redevelopment? Map regarding future study areas. Those
areas go out of the town limits and go into the county – down 34 and other areas. Those
would be zoning issues going forward. Talk about the annexation policy that wasn’t very
clear. Not very well covered. Statements about encouraging reducing short‐term rentals.
Not sure if that’s part of this plan. IGA and what it did and didn’t do – unified goals and
standards for the county. Agrees that’s important. In some ways the plan has addressed
the situation. Otherwise, the plan is right on. He would be in a position to make a
recommendation to accept it.Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ DC – This is a tremendous improvement. There’s still a lot of jargon – words not in
dictionary or defined. E.g., “Placemaking” is not in the dictionary. Would be good to clean
it out – wouldn’t be that hard. If it isn’t in the dictionary, it shows up in word processing
check. Also, Plan only as good as actions, and priorities. Most organizations can’t handle 3‐
4 at a time. What are the priorities. If asking staff which ones. Not reasonable that all
those things get done. Anything that’s going to address the future – will be in the town.
Town is responsible for most. Very little that the county is expecting to change over time.
Is that realistic? Worrisome that the engine is on the town side. Why not allowing ADUs
in the county? Could that help the workforce? What is going to happen next 10‐20 years
for county. Is status quo unrealistic? Not necessarily unhappy with it but thinks It punted
on some things. Pleased with diversity and breadth of discussions. Concern that Action
Items aren’t associated.
Added "Placemaking" to Glossary of Terms
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ MK – Hasn’t had a chance to review so wouldn’t be ready to recommend and will
send comments separately.Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ LM – Annexation – hope for involvement of HOAs, etc. before trying to annex. Not
ready to discuss new IGA prior to this comp plan. That’s coming. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ FT – County is not as likely to have changes. Likes the idea that Hwy 7 shows up as a
study area. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting
‐ A lot of priorities, but by the 23 rd. Recommend to county planning commission push
to prioritize the plan. Wish for a timetable. Can’t solve it. Recommend a prioritization list
and responsibilities. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ FT ‐ Ought to have a formal voice and recommend the plan. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ DW – Agree with the concept. Not a lot more that’s going to happen. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ MK – Should and can make a recommendation. Noted
10/20/2022 EVPAC Meeting ‐ Get Rex’s input. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
I was surprised by the tabulation that 67% of the respondents did not support the draft
plan, with only 22% fully in favor without qualification. This may not portend positively for
a new IGA, which I believe is necessary. Is there any way to know what percent of those
taking the survey participated in this question?
Not sure where Mike got those numbers. We didn't ask for overall
support of the plan. We didn't have a survey or specific questions
that we asked during this phase
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Housing was by far the most commented on area. Limitation or reduction of STRs,
affordable housing (including year around workforce housing and suggestions that the
seasonal workforce be housed in dormitories), ecologically and environmentally sound
building principals seem to be the most popular subjects. I was also surprised at the
number of negative comments regarding additional growth (seems we have (not
surprisingly) a major disagreement between commercial and residential interests). I tend
to fall into the limited growth camp. I was, as you would guess, encouraged about
comments regarding preservation in the North End. I was also surprised to learn during
Thursday’s EVPAC meeting that the concept of historic venues had been turned down
about 10years ago. I think and would have thought this issue would have strong support.
I’m going to try to get more information to see what was involved. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Natural environment:Devils Gulch Road is a Gateway with a large number of people
coming up from Loveland and then detouring up CR 42 at the Forks. Commercial
development along Devils Gulch Road has, to date, been confined to the Town and has
been tastefully done. Let’s keep it that way. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
I like most of the provisions of this section but think many of the Goals envision the Town
expanding further into the County. I don’t object to this as long as the annexed areas
really fit the Town’s loftier goals and the expansion and development is in harmony with
the overall tenor of the general plan and compatible with the character of the area
surrounding the annexed portion.
Noted. The IGA for annexation will be an agreement between the
Town and County.
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Housing: I’m most interested in what we come up with regarding STRs. Residents are
generally opposed to STRs in Residentially zoned areas and would like to see them
reduced or eliminated. I agree with the concept of encouraging lower cost residential
housing and workforce housing and believe we should distinguish between year around
and seasonal workforces. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy Health and Social: I don’t see anything to object to or modify Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Transportation and Infrastructure: I would support some sort of Valley wide public
transportation that reduces County residents’ reliance on individual cars. It doesn’t have
to be more than a couple of connections each in the morning, afternoon, and evening, but
it has to be reliable and could utilize small park and ride lots. I especially like the section
on water. An effort to move all utility lines underground would not only enhance the
viewsheds but has the important benefit of removing what could be a cause of wildfires. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Future Land Use: I think the categories are generally ok, but as with most high‐level plans,
the devil is in the details, which I suspect EVPAC will spend much of the next few years
ironing out. We will need to establish our priorities, responsibilities and timetables as
discussed in Thursday’s meeting, although the Plan provides some amendable guidance. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
Other Notes: I was sorry the screen names in the public comments were omitted. I would
have enjoyed knowing who thought what. Noted
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
While it isn’t our purview, I would like to see the Building Department encourage new
developments to use gravel or other low reflectivity surfaces in new parking lots rather
than asphalt or concrete. Noted but out of the scope of the Comprehensive Plan
10/24/2022 Mike Kennedy
I think this is a good plan in that it replaces the outdated plan with more specific goals and
recommendations. I still see the “them” and “us” approach and feel that a new IGA is
going to be difficult, but desirable. None the less, you, Jody and all the others who have
spent an inordinate amount of time to get us this far are to be commended for a job well
done.Noted