View: Project Documents
| Agency | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Bradley Heights Metro Dist
5/12/2021 4:21:30 PM |
no comment | 5/12/2021 4:21:30 PM | |
|
Colorado Springs Airport Advisory Commission
5/10/2021 1:18:12 PM |
Comments already provided. | 5/10/2021 1:18:12 PM | |
|
Colorado Springs Utilities, Dev, Svc.(includes water resources)
4/22/2021 9:39:39 AM |
I contacted Nina with El Paso County to setup a meeting to see what they want from Springs Utilities on this review. I haven't heard back from Nina, there doesn't seem to be anything that we need to do with this document. Todd Sturtevant | 4/22/2021 9:39:39 AM | |
| View |
Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District
4/20/2021 2:20:19 PM |
4/20/2021 2:20:19 PM | |
| View |
El Paso County Conservation Dist
4/12/2021 7:37:29 AM |
4/12/2021 7:37:29 AM | |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
4/11/2021 1:50:21 PM |
Redlines saved in shared drive. | 4/11/2021 1:50:21 PM |
|
Black Forest Trails Association
4/9/2021 4:19:15 PM |
Uploaded herewith is the existing Trails Addendum, a very well-constructed plan for guidance in trails development that should be referenced in the new Master Plan along with the existing references to other plans such as the Colorado Springs Bike Master Plan and the Major Transportation Corridors Plan. For many years, the Trails Addendum has been a useful document for establishing a network of non-motorized, multi-use trails within new subdivisions and existing neighborhoods, especially in the large lot placetypes and in forested areas. Also missing from the new Master Plan is recognition that gravel roads are an integral part of the trail system. Recognition of their importance to the system should be added to the Master Plan chapters on Transportation and Recreation. Road paving references should be deleted, such as those on page 27, Placetype Characteristics (A) and (H), and preservation of gravel roads should be encouraged to protect the safety and quality of outdoor experiences for the substantial numbers of walkers, hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians using the lower speed, upaved road connections. |
4/9/2021 4:19:15 PM | |
|
Northern EPC Coalition of Community Organizations, Inc. (NEPCO)(to also include the TLLU areas)
4/9/2021 12:38:08 PM |
NEPCO has made 135 comments and 19 strikethroughs to the Master Plan. We planned to export the data file which contains this and attach it as part of our review to EDARP, but apparently an .fdf file (which can easily be imported into a .pdf file like the Master Plan) is unable to be posted on the EDARP site. Therefore, please see our observations below and we will email the .fdf file directly to Nina Ruiz. 1. Given the ease in which you (PCD) or Houseal/Lavigne can “reply” to our comments embedded in the MP, we are looking forward to reading your responses to our input and to see what makes its way into the MP or not -- and especially why. 2. We were disappointed in learning who comprised the MP Advisory Committee and note the extremely narrow range of interests represented and the large potential for conflicts of interests if this MP is adopted. 3. Water planning/use should be the number one priority driving this MP – not population growth – which you have much more control over by slowing down development rezoning at a minimum. 4. We find it incredible that the Southern Delivery System is not mentioned at all in this document. In addition, the failure to emphasize, or even note, the State Water Engineer’s recommendation that allows El Paso County to determine whether it is appropriate to require a developer to obtain renewable water resources for a long-term water supply is unconscionable. 5. We generally favor discretion for decision-makers, but we are concerned whether this plan is so vague that it could easily be used by an overly pro- or anti- development faction in El Paso County leadership positions to interpret it so as to promote their preferential agendas that may well not represent County citizens and our community. Unfortunately, the MP Consistency Evaluation Checklist promotes this vagueness by not requiring all of its “considerations” to be met, unlike the current Land Development Code “criteria” which all must be met. 6. Please do not allow 2.5-acre lots to be considered as primary land uses in 2 different placetypes (Large-Lot Residential and Suburban Residential)! This is a set-up ready for abuse. See our explanation on Page 28 of the MP. Also, since later in this Plan, you call to place increased density in Suburban Residential neighborhoods, this density increase would not be welcomed by any homeowner in a 2.5-acre neighborhood (much less even smaller land holdings)! 7. With all of the preceding ideas in mind, we quote from the Master Plan: “Ultimately, the future is not entirely predictable and placetypes are the County’s best approach to navigating the uncertainty in a way that can provide and safeguard desired character while addressing the needs of residents, businesses, and stakeholders…”. Given this uncertainty about the future and the MP’s constant emphasis on population growth anticipation, we fully expect to hold the Planning Commission, the BoCC, and all the staff involved accountable for the success or failure of this Master Plan as it pertains to safeguarding neighborhood character and addressing the Master Plan-specified needs of all of its current residents. |
4/9/2021 12:38:08 PM | |
|
County Attorney - Development Review
4/8/2021 2:17:03 PM |
County Attorney's Office will provide comments directly to staff. | 4/8/2021 2:17:03 PM | |
|
Woodmen Road Metro
4/7/2021 12:00:05 PM |
The Woodmen Road Metropolitan District has a Service Area versus District Boundaries. Any proposed parcel within the Service Area will need to be annexed into the District and be subject to the District Fees and Mill Levies (tax collection). The other option is to opt-out of joining the Woodmen Road Metropolitan District and pay in lieu of the annual taxes as an opt-out fixed fee. Please contact our office to discuss further oh how that opt-out fee is calculated. 719-447-1777 The Fees after inclusion are as follows: Platting Fees: Commercial- $1540/ACRE Residential- $385.00/LOT Building Permit Fees: Commercial: Destination/hotel- $1.37/SQUARE FOOT Convenience Commercial- $5.51/SQUARE FOOT All Other Uses- $1.10/SQUARE FOOT Residential- Single Family- $550/UNIT Multi Family- $385/UNIT |
4/7/2021 12:00:05 PM | |
|
Woodmen Heights Metro Dist
4/7/2021 11:58:22 AM |
The Woodmen Heights Metropolitan District assess’ platting fees and building permit fees for new development in the District, the District also assess’ a mill levy on property within the District Boundaries. The Fees for 2020 are: Platting Fees: Commercial- $5500/ACRE Residential- $5500/ACRE Capital Improvements Obligation Fee - $2,200/ACRE Building Permit Fees: Commercial- $1.00/SQUARE FOOT Residential- Single Family- $3,959.87/ UNIT Multi Family- $2,375.92/UNIT |
4/7/2021 11:58:22 AM | |
|
Central Marksheffel Metro
4/7/2021 11:57:47 AM |
The Central Marksheffel District assess’ building permit fees for new development in the District, the District also assess’ a mill levy on property within the District Boundaries. The Fees for 2020 are: Building Permit Fees: Commercial: Industrial/ Agricultural - $1.50/ square foot Lodging/ Land - $200/ Room Recreational/ institutional/ medical/ Office/ Retail - $2.00/ square foot Residential: Single Family - $$1,914/ Unit Multi Family - $1,172/ Unit Pronghorn Meadows Filings 2 & 3 - $246.70/ Unit |
4/7/2021 11:57:47 AM | |
|
Bent Grass Metro
4/7/2021 11:54:30 AM |
The Bent Grass Metropolitan District assess’ platting fees and building permit fees for new development in the District, the District also assess’ a mill levy on property within the District Boundaries. The Fees for 2020 are: Traffic Signal Fee: $1,000 Platting Fees: Commercial- $5500/ACRE Residential- $5500/ACRE Building Permit Fees: Commercial: Industrial/ Agricultural/ Recreational/ institutional/ medical/ Office/ Retail/ Other non-residential - $1.00/ square foot Residential: Single Family - $500/ Unit Multi Family - $350/ Unit |
4/7/2021 11:54:30 AM | |
|
Pikes Peak Regional Building Department
4/7/2021 11:05:52 AM |
no comment | 4/7/2021 11:05:52 AM | |
| View |
Mountain View Electric Association, Inc.
4/6/2021 1:48:29 PM |
See attached comments | 4/6/2021 1:48:29 PM |
| View |
Schriever AFB
4/6/2021 11:25:26 AM |
Proposed replacement antenna image attached. | 4/6/2021 11:25:26 AM |
| View |
Schriever AFB
4/6/2021 11:24:41 AM |
Comments support exhibits file attached. | 4/6/2021 11:24:41 AM |
| View |
Schriever AFB
4/6/2021 11:23:42 AM |
Schriever AFB review comments submitted via website questionnaire on 4-6-2021. A printout of the completed questionnaire is attached, along with support exhibits, and a proposed updated image to be considered for use in the military chapter. | 4/6/2021 11:23:42 AM |
|
Cimarron Hills Fire
4/6/2021 7:39:27 AM |
CHFD has reviewed the Master Plan. Will there be any information added and/or included with regard to the new County Burn Ordinance. This may or may not be a place for this. Along with that, would there be any details that will outline the Fire District's that perform planning and construction review and what those procedures are? Again, this may not be appropriate for this plan, I am just throwing some ideas out there. If you need specific information from Cimarron Hills Fire District, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks, J.T. McLeod, Division Chief of Fire and Life Safety-CHFD. | 4/6/2021 7:39:27 AM | |
|
EPC Environmental Services
4/2/2021 11:12:12 AM |
The Environmental Division has no comments at this time. | 4/2/2021 11:12:12 AM | |
|
County Attorney - Water
3/30/2021 2:09:56 PM |
No water review necessary. | 3/30/2021 2:09:56 PM | |
|
911 Authority - El Paso/Teller County
3/30/2021 1:13:28 PM |
Plans received, thank you. No comment for E911 at this time. |
3/30/2021 1:13:28 PM | |
|
EPC Parks Department
3/30/2021 9:39:06 AM |
El Paso County Community Services / Parks comments were either emailed directly to Mark Gebhart and Craig Dossey, or were integrated into the final text through a virtual work session with EPC PCD and the Master Plan contractor. | 3/30/2021 9:39:06 AM | |
|
Parks Advisory Board
3/30/2021 9:38:16 AM |
El Paso County Community Services / Parks comments were either emailed directly to Mark Gebhart and Craig Dossey, or were integrated into the final text through a virtual work session with EPC PCD and the Master Plan contractor. | 3/30/2021 9:38:16 AM | |
|
Academy SD 20 Building Fund
3/30/2021 7:22:12 AM |
Academy District 20 is in receipt of File #MP211. The District has no comment regarding the El Paso county Draft Master Plan and Implementation. Don Smith Planning Consultant |
3/30/2021 7:22:12 AM | |
|
County Attorney - 1041
3/29/2021 3:15:21 PM |
This appears to be a duplicate submittal. Thank you. | 3/29/2021 3:15:21 PM | |
| View |
Public Service Company of Colorado dba X-cel Energy
3/29/2021 2:28:46 PM |
3/29/2021 2:28:46 PM | |
|
Black Forest Fire Protection District
3/29/2021 9:12:09 AM |
Have received a copy of the master plan. No further comments at this time. | 3/29/2021 9:12:09 AM | |
|
Colorado Division of Water Resources
3/29/2021 9:02:49 AM |
I have reviewed this plan together with Joanna Williams, and I have no additional comments other than the ones Joanna is submitting. | 3/29/2021 9:02:49 AM | |
|
Parks Advisory Board
3/29/2021 7:21:54 AM |
El Paso County Community Services / Parks comments were either emailed directly to Mark Gebhart and Craig Dossey, or were integrated into the final text through a virtual work session with EPC PCD and the Master Plan contractor. | 3/29/2021 7:21:54 AM | |
|
EPC Parks Department
3/29/2021 7:21:05 AM |
El Paso County Community Services / Parks comments were either emailed directly to Mark Gebhart and Craig Dossey, or were integrated into the final text through a virtual work session with EPC PCD and the Master Plan contractor. | 3/29/2021 7:21:05 AM | |
|
CIG Colorado Interstate Gas
3/25/2021 5:26:34 PM |
Colorado Interstate Gas Company (AKA Kinder Morgan) owns and operates multiple high pressure gas pipelines, and meter stations throughout El Paso County. There is no mention of Colorado Interstate Gas on pages 105-106 of the Master Plan. Colorado Interstate Gas has no objections to the proposed El Paso County Master plan, as long as Colorado Interstate Gas reserves its right to maintain, protect, and have continued access to all its right of ways and facilities. Most of Colorado Interstate Gas pipelines are within the "Areas of Change of new development on page 22"; Colorado Interstate Gas respectfully requests to be considered as part of the development review process so that processes can be followed to protect the integrity of the pipeline, the safety of the general public, and to maintain the right of way in manner that will prevent unapproved encroachments or construction activities. | 3/25/2021 5:26:34 PM | |
|
Cherokee Metro Dist
3/25/2021 11:23:48 AM |
• The population growth is frequently referenced as exponential, but it isn’t. The percent growth rate 2010-2019 is lower than each of the previous 7 decades and if the County does reach one million by 2050 as predicted the annual growth rate will be even lower • In section 9 there’s no full page detail on Schriever Air Force Base like for the other installations despite it being one of the largest employers in the County and being one of the main drivers of growth along Highway 94 • Water plan page: El Paso county gets around 15 inches of total precipitation per year, not 30 • The plan encourages water efficient landscaping, and CMD welcomes the recommendations to modify the development code to be friendly to water efficient landscaping, but would like to know if these recommendations will allow for more variances under the current code |
3/25/2021 11:23:48 AM | |
|
Upper Black Squirrel Creek GWMD
3/23/2021 3:04:10 PM |
The Upper Black Squirrel Creek is reviewing the master plan and will get comments in by April 9th, 2021. | 3/23/2021 3:04:10 PM | |
|
EPC Environmental Services
3/23/2021 1:44:59 PM |
The El Paso County Environmental Division has no comments. | 3/23/2021 1:44:59 PM | |
|
Academy SD 20 Building Fund
3/22/2021 7:21:54 AM |
Academy District 20 has no comment regarding File MP21, Your el Paso Master Plan. Don Smith Planning Consultant |
3/22/2021 7:21:54 AM | |
|
Trails and Open Space Coalition
3/18/2021 1:01:00 PM |
We would suggest that the observation that the last county parks master plan(2011) identified 700 miles of trails to be constructed and to date I believe fewer than 25 miles have been constructed be included in the section about trails and parks and not health ( where it gets lost) or put in both places. Master plans (like this one) are created to be taken seriously. Obviously that has not been the case with the EPC parks MP as so little has been accomplished. Also new construction should require developers to build and maintain parks as is the common practice in Colorado Springs and the developments being approved in EPC now resemble COS with more people per acre and few parks included or nearby. That is not consistent with our legacy or the goals of this master plan. Glad you included the Destination Master Plan..perhaps also include the COS Parks master plan of 2014. Thank you |
3/18/2021 1:01:00 PM | |
|
Colorado Division of Water Resources
3/17/2021 5:15:41 AM |
On page 129 of the Master Plan under Groundwater it states "Water contained in the upper and outer layers of these aquifers is considered tributary to the County’s surface water resources and is generally not available for consumptive use without augmentation." This statement is inaccurate and I would recommend that it be removed or amended. | 3/17/2021 5:15:41 AM | |
|
Colorado State Forest Service
3/16/2021 10:51:45 AM |
The Colorado State Forest Service has no comment at this time. | 3/16/2021 10:51:45 AM | |
|
County Attorney - Water
3/15/2021 4:47:13 PM |
No water review needed. | 3/15/2021 4:47:13 PM | |
| View |
Public Service Company of Colorado dba X-cel Energy
3/15/2021 10:40:32 AM |
Please see attached. | 3/15/2021 10:40:32 AM |
|
County Attorney - 1041
3/10/2021 3:25:58 PM |
This appears to be duplicate project. Thank you. | 3/10/2021 3:25:58 PM | |
|
RBD Floodplain
3/10/2021 12:12:29 PM |
on page 136 of the pdf , "The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is August 23, 1999." should read "The effective date for the current countywide FIRM is December 7 2018". |
3/10/2021 12:12:29 PM | |
|
Lewis Palmer 38
3/10/2021 12:00:19 PM |
Lewis-Palmer School District 38 has no comment at this time. | 3/10/2021 12:00:19 PM |
EDARP