November 7th Meeting widely attended
The November 7th meeting had over 120 people in attendance. You can still comment through the “virtual meeting” materials and here on the blog. Stay tuned, the town and county will be doing additional community outreach through November and December. The next set of countywide meetings will be the week of January 28th, 2008. Times and locations to be determined.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
It appears from what is being planned that Jackson will, in the not too far future, become overbuilt, overpopulated and overgrown and, as a result, will thus lose its “place in the sun” that it has enjoyed up to now!
December 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
December 20, 2007
Gentlemen,
I am coming late to the Comprehensive Master Plan revision process, and I apologize for this, but I would like to add my sentiments and opinions regarding the 1994 plan, our updated plan and the direction I believe our community should be heading.
This first response to your request for comments comes from your web-page print-out titled Help Refine the Plan’s Vision.
To the question regarding the 1994 plan:
What topics are still relevant today?
1) I believe we should continue to Support and promote a diverse social and economic population that includes a resident work force, but not to the extent that it conflicts with and diminishes community character. Affordable housing sometimes conflicts with community character, depending on location.
2) The statement that we should Preserve the traditions and character of the Rocky Mountain West and Wyoming, including ranching and through architectural design, I believe, should be reviewed and changed.
I would revise this statement to read something like, Preserve the traditions and character of Jackson Hole, through architectural design that respects what has been historically dominant.
I believe that using the term Rocky Mountain West and Wyoming is far too broad. What I want to see preserved is the historical aspects and character of Jackson Hole, which are not necessarily the same as the rest of the Rocky Mountain West.
With regard to ranching, I don’t believe that attempts to preserve ranching, in its strict sense, is any longer relevant. What remains today are a few cattle feeding operations on conservation easements and several pieces of private property, which, within the time-span of the updated plan, will also either be developed or be placed under conservation easements.
3) The statement that the plan Promote economic sustenance that does not depend on population growth: It seems to me, this is mostly outside the control of town and county government. Occasionally, situations have arisen where there has been conflict between private enterprise and one of our surrounding federal landowners, and the town or county has weighed in, e.g. snowmobiles in Yellowstone or the threatened move of the Bridger-Teton National Forest headquarters. But, it seems to me, these federal bodies, if they are swayed at all, are only swayed by pressure from state and other federal entities (congressional delegations, etc.). I don’t see it as something that needs to be included in the updated plan. Economic sustenance will be determined by market forces. Control of this, such as restricting commercial development, is something to be addressed in the LDRs.
4) Set aside, for generations to come, scenic vistas and wildlife habitat. Although this is a nice sounding goal, I am not aware that either the town or county has considered it or made any significant attempts to fulfill it. Where is the “scenic vista” created by the Snake River and Associates Teton Village expansion? The golf course? Has the Resort zone contributed to wildlife habitat? Has the Snake River Sporting Club enhanced wildlife habitat? Do three and four story buildings enhance the “scenic vistas” from downtown Jackson? In my opinion, this statement has been totally subsumed in the mad dash for development in Teton County. It is a lofty goal. It is a proper goal. It has been ignored.
5) Maintain and enhance environmental quality, including air and water quality.
This is a proper statement for the updated plan. I totally agree with this goal — however vague. Are there any other facets of our environment that could be included? Scenic vistas and wildlife are mentioned above, but how about limits on population density? Is this not a major factor in determining our environmental quality? As population density has increased, the environmental quality of Jackson Hole has diminished. It has affected everything from pedestrian safety, noise and traffic to building size and crowded backcountry hiking ─ and these certainly constitute the environment in which we exist. I would include population density as it includes so many life-quality aspects.
6) Maintain outdoor recreation and adventure opportunities. I fail to see how these aspects of life in our community (s) should be a part of town and county considerations.
7) Offer a spectrum of housing types, especially for resident workers. I agree with this statement but feel it should single out key resident workers such as teachers, health and safety related personnel.
To the question “What topics are missing and should be added”:
1) I would like to see a statement(s) that addresses population density separately rather than be included in number 5 above, as I suggested.
At some point in the future, this “island” of Jackson Hole will be built out to its maximum population. Most or all the available private land will have been developed, leaving only resales.
Rather than advance toward that eventual end blindly and haphazardly such that it results in a community that is no longer desirable, I would prefer to see goals, hard and fast goals, with strict zoning, placed on a land-use map and instituted in our LDRs with a statement in the updated plan that reflects those goals.
An example: Pursue strategies through zoning and land use regulations to achieve a maximum population buildout of 30,000 persons.
2) I am not aware of how much prominence our public transportation system was given in the 1994 plan, but I believe it is incumbent upon the writers of the updated plan to include a strong reference to this topic.
To your question, “Which topics should be our priorities” I would prefer this order:
1) population buildout; 2) preserve community character; 3) scenic vistas and wildlife habitat; 4) environmental quality; 5); diverse population; 6) public transportation;
7) housing types
To the question: What else does the plan say is important?
1) Balance between resort and community development
My sentiment is that this can be left out of an updated plan. I would prefer that the Resort zone be eliminated entirely, as it has been abused by both the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club and the Snake River Sporting Club. It is an up zone with no limits other than those imposed by a handful of County Commissioners.
2) Efficient multi-modal transportation system
This should be given a louder voice in the updated plan.
3) Community life
I am not sure that this needs to be addressed. It seems to me that this “goes without saying.”
4) Historic Preservation
I can’t help considering this some sort of joke. The only thing Teton County has done in this area is to establish the Teton County Historic Preservation Board, of which I have been a member for several years. Other than a voice in historic preservation in Grand Teton National Park and the listing of two county properties on the National Register of Historic Places in the Town of Jackson, I know of nothing that has been done that resembles historic preservation. Historic preservation lies with the sentiments of the property owner – which is, almost without exception, non existent.
One other exception: the town and county did allow the Jackson Hole Museum and Historical Society to get on the Special Purposes Excise Tax, which passed and will fund a major portion of a new museum.
5) Sustainable economy
I believe this won’t be an issue until the next comprehensive plan – if then.
6) Development that achieves fiscal balance
I don’t know what this means.
Your web-page print-out titled Help Refine the Plan’s Vision also contains a paragraph titled “The 1994 Plan Guiding Principles.”
I find the “principles” all very reasonable except the last, which states “. . . is to provide property owners and local business with as much flexibility as possible in the use and development of their property.” I must say that town officials have fulfilled this “principle” to the nth degree. County officials, less so. This smacks of pandering to the landed residents and businessmen of Jackson Hole. It reads as though we must assure them that town and county officials will not do anything to diminish potential land values, in order to assuage them and gather their acquiescence.
I find this totally unnecessary, given the real estate and business climate, both presently and historically.
Within the next couple of days I will submit a definition of “Community Character” ─ that elusive topic we all use to describe something to which we all seem to have a slightly different idea.
Sincerely,
Larry Kummer
1930 Cinnamon Teal Drive
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-3447
lkummer@msn.com
January 31st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
My may concern in how planners seem to want to fix our housing problem by creating more density. There seemed to be little talk last night about increasing the affordable housing requirement to at least 40%, as what was recommended by an outside study panel to be the bare minimum requirement. I don’t see how allowing three to four story buildings or allowing developers to have increase density bonuses in town helps the housing problem. All new density and additional units created will just be sold at a market rate which only exacerbates the problem.
For example, I have seen how people in town are getting approval for lot splits. They in turn sell those lots for over $500K without having to provide affordable housing. We now place the value of town lots on the amount of market density you can develop over esthetics or affordable housing.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
The meeting last night produced more elitist thinking from “the true locals”. What resources are we saving if Jackson snubs out afforadable housing in the name of the enviornment yet allows 8000 sqft homes to be bulit with no regard for renewable materials, or “architectural design”?
Money reigns supreme in the “last of the old west”.