Untitled
kathe626@aoLcom
Mon 12/31/2018 5:48 PM
lc:Board Of County Commissioners
I understand there is to be a meeting on the 3 of January to again discuss the approve enlarging the allowable square foot of the proposed
Classic Acadmy. I urge you to accept the recommendation of the Planning department and keep it at max of 10,000 and limited hours. Thank you Katherine Coelho Classical Academy
Shirley Thomas
Mon 12/31/2018 7:40 PM
:c Board Of County Commissioners
Once again we pled with you to deny this huge change to our rural LDRSfor the academy. Ifwe lose this rural area we can never regain it. The Academy, while a wonderful school belongs in a school zone. Thank you. Shirley and Dan Thomas Jackson Rural area preserve
Nancy StCair
Tuo 1/1/2019 10:17AM
To: Board Of County Corrrrnissioners
Dear commissioners
I am totally against the proposed increase of buildings in our rural areas.
The 2012 comprehensive plan should be respected. We do not need suburban sprawl.
Say NO, ànce arid for all, Ifnot now, then there willbe exception after exception arrd rural willrio longer exist.
Thank you Nancy Stclair
Sent from YahooMailon Android .0 H EwU:Override county planner in zoning changes
Natalia
Tue 1/1/2019 10:44 AM
To:BoardOf CountyCommissioners
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mike Hornbuckle
To: nrnacker@tetoncountyygg% V Subject: Override county planner in zoning changes
Natalia
I attended the last meeting concerning the change in the comprehensive plan in this zoning for a school. In all the public comment I heard there was riot one person speaking on behalf of the change in zoning who actcrally spoke to zoning. Allwere cermmnrerrtingon how great a school it is not what it could possibly mean to our valley. This tells roe they do not care about zoning only about themselves, as proven by their attempt to have those in the state capitol make decisions for us in Teton County.
I also do not believe it prudent to override what our paid county planner has concluded in not allowing the zoning to change.
I also do not believe if I,as an individual who bouglmtthat lot, would be allowed to build a home over 10000 sq. ft. and get away with having yotir commission change the laws for little old me.
Please keep our southern entrance rural as per the recent 2012 plan.
Regards Mike Horribuckle Fulltime Jackson resident cC5 Changing [DR for Rural Building Size (re: ClassicalAcademy)
Denise Tsuruda-DobeH
The 1/1/2019 11:49 AM
To;Board Of County Cornmssioners
January 1,2019
Ms. Denise Tsuruda-Dobell 4250 Hufsmith Hill Rd. P.O. Box 4283 Jackson, WY 83001
Teton County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 3594 Jackson, WY 83001
Attention: Teton CoLinty Board of Commissioners (Chairman Mark Newcomb, Paul Vogelheim, Smokey Rhea, Natalia Macker, and Greg Epstein)
Re: Changing LDR for Rural Building Size (re: Classical Academy)
Thank you for extending the public comment period on the LDR concerning Rural Building size. It is a very important issue to Teton
County as a whole. As a resident of Teton County for the past 35 years and South Park for the past two years, I am very invested in the future of rural lands and Teton County as a whole.
The maximum building size of 10000 Sf in rural areas has been in place since 1994, and the 2012 Comprehensive Plan commitment to building size reiterates this importance to direct growth away from rural lands. The decision to change the LDR that limits building size is not about one school, but would dramatically. impact all rural areas in Teton County.
Wildlife as well as the quality of life in South Park would be very impacted by a large private school complex of 117,000 SF. Why did Tetorl County have the 2012 Comprehensive Plan if residents did not want to preserve our rural lands? Please consider this very important issue and do not change the building size LDR to support one vested interest.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincetely,
Ms. Denise Tsuruda-DobeII End-run around our regs, etc - ClassicalAcademy
Km McGioior
Fun 1/1/2019 12:36 PM
TciBoard Of County Commissioners
Cc:Fldrnhlton Smith
Dear Commissioners, and Mr. Smith:
am writing once again to urge you to vote down this land-grab and up-zoning demand by the proponents of the Classical Academy. It flies in the lace of our county regs and rules, and should not be allowed to happen in any rural area of our county. These people have so much money and are willing to go to any lengths, legal or otherwise, to further their agenda it is sickening to contemplate the damage to be done should this be allowed to proceed as theyd like.While I have nothing personal against this school it needs to go somewhere near town and not ocit in the open spaces of our county where wildlife live and cross. The traffic scenario is appalling to envision not to mention the noise and lights that would accompany this project. Growth is inevitable, but we have the tools in our LDRsand Comprehensive Plan to prevent abuse.
Please vote to DENYthis application. I thank you for listening - again. And thanks for your service to our county.
Sincerely, Kim and Bnh McGregor Teton County
Sent trom my Pad 07 Vail/iHG&Tapplication to amend the master plan
Tue 1/1/2019 12:48 PM
To. Board Of Coui ity Comrnissione s Dear Teton County Commissioners: I am an owner at Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis. I am writing you in opposition to the proposal by Vail resorts to amend the Master Plan to allow for 13 concrete RV pads across from the club house. I own site 53, close to the proposed RV park. I am aware of the shortage of affordable housing for sesonal workers in Teton County. Howevet, this is already taken into consideration in the 2002 Master Plan. It is my understanding Vail Resorts would be able to accomodate seasonal employees under the present Master Plan. It is also my understanding they have contstructed such housing in their other resorts outside of Teton County, rather than simply laying RV pads. I purchased my property understanding this existing Master Plan, which considers not only employee housing, but a unified design arid wildlife protections. I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Johnson Oppose VailResorts Proposal to Modify the Master Plan for Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Community Frank Bayer Tue 1/1/2019 12:58 PM To:Board Of County Commissioners Dear Board of County Commissioners: I urn writing to express my opposition to VailResorts application to amend the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis (JFIG&i)Master Plan. As the owner of a cabin at JHG&T,I encourage you to reject their proposed changes to the Master Plan for the following reasons: • The Cabins at JHG&Tis a planned community, supported by an existing Master Plan that was approved by the county, It sets the high standards for the community, including unified design elements and wildlife protection. It was a material consideration in attracting us to JHG&Tand has been relied upon by the surrounding community in their decision to be a part of this community. • The proposal by VailResorts to modify the plan to build 13 RVpads represents a material change to the Master Plan and would unnecessarily compromise the high standards that attracted the owners to JHG&I and have been a hallmark of the planned community for the past several years. 0 • VailResorts on its web page, claims “Our Product is the Great Outdoors” and goes on to say Everything we rio needs to he alicjned with our five stakeholders: Our Guests, Our Employees, Our Communities, Our Natural Environment and OcirShareholders. Yet,it seems clear that the Commun:tv is not aligned with VailResorts on their proposal and the proposed changes are not in the best interest of the Natural Environment. • While I ssrongty support the need for Vailto provide housing for its seasonal employees, their proposal is based in their sell intemsi to lower their costs, shifting some of the cost to their employees, at the expense of lowering the design elernent5 and the wildlife protection provisions that have been in existence since the Master Plan was approved. Iwould eircodrrage the Board to avoid rewarding VailResorts with a concession that is effectively designed to serve their frrrarrcrulinterests. Instead, Vail Resorts should uplrold the high standards of the current Master Plan and require VailResorts to follow it and construct actual housing units in the areas Uesigrrated by the current Master Plan arrd not expect their seasonal employees to bring their own housing urrits. Respectfr.illy, trunk & Nancy Boyer 5870 Mountain Mahogany Ln (Cabrn #13 at JHG&T) Jackson, WY83001 ô i, , ]H Classical Academy. Mary Patno Tue 1/1/2019 1:37 PM ToBoard Of County Commissioners Dear Teton County Commissioners, I I am asking that you DENYthe rule change requested by the Classical Academy. adamantly oppose any increase in building size. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Mary Patno 1Ictr;’ Pu flit) P013 136S Jackson. \\‘Y 300 I 307-413-0090 niarypatno(bresnan.net ‘Not everything that can be counted counts, And Not everything that counts can be counted’ -Einstein Classical Academy Jack Krouskup Tue 1/1/2019 3:20 PM To:Board Of County Commissioners Hamilton Smith We have corresponded with you several times on the scope and location of the proposed classical Academy School and look forward to speaking to you this Thursday when you consider building size and amendment to that [DR. Our existing laws were adopted after careful consideration and any attempt to amend will likely have lasting and negative implications. The location and scope of the Academy are just wrong. As proposed, the Academy will be a significant and imposing commercial enterprise dropped in the middle of rural ranch land. Yescommercial enterprise — on any given day there will countless vehicles for teachers, students and support staff, not to mention the endless support services that will be required — plumbers, electricians, painters — the list goes on. The approval of this massive project willjust be the first of many. Your collective decision will be precedent setting and will drop the barrier for commercial development in our protected areas of the valley. Please take a long term view and don’t allow this to happen. Jack and l Kenneth Willis The 1/1/2019 3:58 PM T,-Board 01 County Commissioners Hello Board of Teton County Cmissioners, am writing to express my support for Vail Resorts’ application to amend the Jackson Hole Golf &Tennis Master Plan. I live in the Estates at Jackson Hole Golf &Tennis, 6220 Prickly Pear Lane. My residence is across Spring Gulch Road but still fairly close to the site proposed for a seasonal employee trailer park. I drive and/or walk by the site regularly in the summer time. I’ve seen a demonstration of what Vail Resorts proposes. Some people seem to think Vail Resorts means to erect an eyesore, but it seems to me (based on what Vail proposes to do) that the result willlook no worse than what is already there and may even visually enhance it. Therefore, I urge the County Commissioners to approve this plan. Other than living in a house that is on the golf course and occasionally skiing at Vail Village in Coloradol I have no other connections with Vail Resorts. Thank you, Ken Willis Deny ]H Classical Academy’s Application to Amend the LDRs Michele Gammer Tue 1,;!2019 6:28 PM To Board Of County Commissioners Hamilton Smith Dear Commissioners, write in strong opposition to the application of the JH Classical Academy seeking an amendment of the Teton County Land Development Regulations to increase building size from 10,000 SF to up to 30,000 SF. Your decision on January 3 is not about just one school. Youare being asked to change the law on building size for the entire County. Such a change will dramatically and negatively impact the character of our rural areas from Alta to Hoback to Buffalo Valley. The maximum building size of 10,000 SF in rural areas was put in place in 1994 and has since been repeatedly reaffirmed when the LDR5have been updated. You have been urged to deny the Academy’s increase in building size by your own Planning Department, a unanimous County Planning Commission, former Commissioners Hank Phibbs and Leslie Petersen, the Alta Advisory Board, the JH Conservation Alliance, Save Historic Jackson Hole, and an overwhelming majority of county residents. Please don’t ignore them. Why does the Classical Academy want to increase building size county-wide in a substantial manner? A review of its site plan filed with its application establishes that it wants to construct a performing arts center and an events lobby, with an attached amphitheater, as well as a gymnasium complex composed of two gymnasiums, which it claims must each be at least 15,000 SFto 30,000 SF in size. This is the only justification provided by the school and, importantly, not a single other entity in the valley supports this drastic change in building size for rural areas. Ifthe LDRchange is adopted, nothing would prohibit the Academy from constructing multiple 15,000 or 30,000 SF buildings using the Floor Area Option Tool. Common sense dictates that buildings of this magnitude are suited not for a school of 100 students, but instead for a mega church or large event venue to be used commercially by visitors and other organizations. A school auditorium with an amphitheater need not be 15,000 SFor more. Two wonderful auditoriums already exist in the County that are regularly used by non-profit organizations. Walk Festival Hall seats 750 and it is available for rental throughout the year. In fact, the school currently uses that hall for its student concerts. The Center for the Arts has a first class theater with 525 seats open for rental to non-profits and others. It is a public/private partnership heavily supported by the community and has struggled financially over the past few years. It was designed in part for theater, music, and dance events produced by Jackson Hole organizations. Changing the law to allow a school to create another large performing arts center and an events lobby with an amphitheater, as proposed, is completely unnecessary and will have a negative effect on the financial viability and vitality of the existing Center for the Arts. A school gymnasium need not be 15,000 SF or more. A regulation size high school basketball court is 84x50, approximately 4000 SF. With bleachers, appropriately sized locker rooms, and a weight room, such a gymnasium could easily be constructed under 10,000 SF. Two Teton District elementary schools, the middle school, and the recreation center serving literally thousands of residents, visitors, and children all have gyms less than 10,000 SF in size. The Academy proposes on its site plan to build two separate gymnasiums. Surely, two separate buildings of 10,000 SF or less should be sufficient for 100 students. This is especially true given that the Teton County School District currently accommodates high school and middle school athletes who attend private schools or home study and wish to be eligible to play on the high school and middle school teams. Please have courage to honor the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, don’t destroy it. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes that growth should be directed away from rural areas. Given the Academy’s latest state legislative effort to strip the County Commission of all authority over the siting, construction, and use of its proposed massive campus, this may well be the last time you ever get to decide any issue relating to the Academy. Don’t adopt a county-wide change to the current law on building size that will destroy the character of our rural areas, just to please one special interest entity that is spending thousands of dollars in Cheyenne to divest you of all local authority over it. Thank you. Sincerely, Michele Gammer Teton County Resident Concerns! Vail/JHG&I application to amend the master plan Aaron Neus Tue 1/1/2019 902 PM To;Board Of County Commissioners Dear Board of County Commissioners, My wife and recently purchased our plot at Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis on Junegrass to construct what will be a beloved home for our family for generations to come. We have small children and the idea behind our purchase in the area was to expose them to all the wonders of Jackson, with the beautiful aesthetic that exists at JHG&T.I am writing to express my opposition to VailResorts application to amend the Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis Master Plan. Our property is close to the site proposed for a seasonal employee trailer park. We are keenly aware of the housing situation in the area, and therefore the need for more affordable housing for workers. We are very much in favor of that. However, like many communities, Master Plans are devised in order to ensure a community is developed and built in a sustainable way for the long term. The JHG&TMaster plan was developed for the same reason. These plans are not devised to be amended based on the suitability of the moment, but to provide the necessary guidance and direction for decades of development. The site proposed for the trailer park is full of beautiful native trees, in the migration corridor and adjacent to a channel of the Gros Ventre...that site wa.s proposed as it was in the Master Plan for a reason...it should not be disturbed in this way. We are, on the other hand, very supportive of Vail providing employee housing for the seasonal employees of Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis as specifically outlined in the 2002 Master Plan, by both the type of housing specified and in the location identified which is between the west end of the existing maintenance yard and the current JHG&Temployee housing duplex and dormitory. Vail has spent significant capital for employee housing at some of their other resorts, and we believe that be what is appropriate here as well. We want JHG&Tto thrive, for both Vailand ourselves, and, for that to happen, both the environment and the employees need to be thrivirlg. The original Master Plan had the foresight around what would deliver those dual objectives, and, thus, we request that those requirements be maintained. Thanks, aaron Aaron Neus Senior Vice President of Strategy and Development Office: (713) 634-3520 Cell: (201) 218 7682 Email: F. VailResort’s application to amend the master plan of Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis Wed 1/2/2019 5.03 AM BoaiUOf CountyCelnrnisslQners Dear Board of County Commissioners, I am writing to express my opposition to Vail Resorts application to amend the Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis Master Plan. I live in the Estates at Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis and close to the site proposed for a seasonal employee trailer park. The site proposed for the seasonal employee trailer park is full of cottonwood trees, willows, adjacent to a channel of the Gros Ventre River, itl tile wildlife migration corridor and is located in the Teton County Natural Resource Overlay. Tile location is directly across the street from the main entrance to the clubhouse and immediately adjacent to the Teton County Pathway along Spring Gulch Road. I fully support Vailproviding employee housing for the seasonal employees of Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis as specifically outlined in the 2002 Master Plan, by both the type of housing specified and in tile location identified which is between the west end of the existing maintenance yard and the current JHG&Temployee housing duplex and dormitory. However the proposed location and impact to our wildlife does not seem to be a logical proposal. Regards Peter & Carla Gavey Vote tomorrow jennifer Ross Wd 1/2/2019 10:01 AM Board Of County Commissioners Hamilton Smith Dear Board of County Commissioners, After you voted to approve the text amendments for increased hours of operation, I have taken some time to try to understand your reasoning. I tell myself it was a hole in the language and that it does not mean a 117,000 square foot school campus will be erected in a rural open area not suited or zoned for such a behemoth. But you have not gained my trust. My husband attending the meeting all day, to finally have a chance to speak. I was working but had written and made phone calls. It was hard to wrap my head around the fact that you voted to approve such a change and go against the advice of the Staff Report and the overwhelming public disapproval. Looking ahead to tomorrows vote, I find myself in the untenable situation of begging you to consider more carefully your actions, repercussions and far-teaching implications of the vote to increase allowable building size. It seems you are looking at this from the perspective that this campus will inevitably be built. This is NOT an inevitability. The proposed basketball court and auditorium would turn the Comprehensive Plan goal on its head. With every step you take, you are showing the community a lack of respect for the Comp. Plan, a disregard for the community’s concerns, and the overarching lack of care for our precious valley. I shouldn’t need to remind you that these proposed changes would not be made only for the Classical Academy folks, but for every single entity who wants to build and develop on land that is not appropriate. If you bend the rules too far, they will break. I apologize for the tone of this letter, but I am disheartened to say the least. (Special apologies go to Natalia, who received the brunt of my anger the day of the vote in a voicemail.) But to watch the degradation of OUR valley, not only my back yard, is painful. Please don’t be part of the problem, be the solution. With respect, Jennifer Ross PS I will be working during the meeting tomorrow but would like to have attended and spoken. If I can send someone in my stead to read my comments, please let me know. Deny ]H Classical Academy’s request to increase maximum building size in the R-1 Wed 1/2/2019 10:36 AM Board Of County Commissioners Mark Newcornb 1 attdrlunents (528 KB) 2015.4.15 TRC_CommentPkt_Rurallools.pdf; January 2, 2019 Dear Mark, Paul, Greg, Smokey and Natalia, These are my last written thoughts before your reviewtomorrow. Please deny the JH ClassicalAcademy request to increase the maximum building size in the R-1above 10,000 SF. Institutional memory is always lacking - bLit I can assure you I followed both the five-yearjoint Comprehensive Plan process intently and also the two-years that the rural LDRsevolved in response to the Plan. In a nutshell you tried to close the door entirely for institutional uses (education, daycare and assembly) in the R-1and R-2.Yousaid traditional education and assembly uses DO NOTBELONGin the rural zones. Youand the Planning Commission found that the extremely clear Joint 2012 Comprehensive Plan direction was to move growth from the Rural to Complete Neighborhoods. That institutional uses specificallyshould occur in Complete Neighborhoods — not in the Rural.There are numerous sections in both the Plan and LDRsthat attest to that which I have pointed out previously to you. It was only because the Teton Raptor Center submitted multiple letters and make comment to keep the door open a y!jght crack for those rare types of institutional uses that were dependent on the rural - that the LDR5were adjusted. That was during the winter, spring and early summer of 2015. Please review two TRCattached letters with highlights, which willhelp refresh your memory. But you also kept in language in the LDRsin several locations that clearly call out that only agricultural and rural based programming should he able to pursue a CUPin the rural. Youalso retained constraints on maximum building size, times of use and intensity of use. Youalso excluded the NROfor institutional use - but Ishould point out that is to be significantlyreduced in the natural resource LDR updates ifyou limitit to only the highest of three tiers. Basicallythe direction of the most recent natural resource LDRsis to reduce the NRO portion that excludes institutional use by.bif. YOLIalso left in very significant language on bulk and scale of buildings in the LDR5— specificallyin Division3, which covers the R-1and R-2. So here we are with an applicant requesting a global change to the R-1that is not necessary. More troubling is regardless of your decision tomorrow the Academy fullyintends to not follow any of the Plan direction, current zoning nor any County direction of siting, use or occupancy. That can be broadly interpreted to say you willhave no control on maximum size of buildings, their height or even the use of materials. Yetyou are being asked to change the law on building size for the entire County. That willimpact tile character of our rural areas from Alta to BuffaloValley— through South Park all the way to the Hoback. And for what? The maximum building size of 10,000SFin rural areas was put in place in 1994 - and has since been repeatedly reaffinned when the LDRshave been updated. As you know your professional Planning Department including TylerSinclaii:Susan Johnson, AlexNorton and Hamilton Smith have continued to urge you to deny the Academy’s increase in building size. Evenat a reduced 15,000 SF. A unanimous Teton County Planning Commission — including Stephan Fodor - recommended denial of this text amendment. Even at a reduced 15,000SR From the JH News and Guide story that ran - below are a few quotes as they stated their reasons for denial: “/ am not coinfortab/e going against ctirrent pub/ic op//lion or pub/ic opinion as expressed in the comp p/an and through the LDRreview process by arbitrari/y changing t/?esca/e of the buildings from 70,000square feet or some /aiger nc,mbei”Cliairwonian Karen Rockey said. “/ don’t see an inconsistency that needs to be resolved,”Commissioner Glen Esnard said. “Wedon’t have a p/oh/em inherent in the cut-rent LORs.Un/ess t/?eres evidence there is, If?fact, a broader need to amend tIle LDRsIf?terms of tile square footage, / think it’s very difflcu/t to move forward affirmativelybased Of? one use.” Youhave heard in letters and meetings fron?former Commissioners Hank Phibbs and LesliePetersen. I know also you have heard privately from other former County Commissioners. Yourappointed fullAlta Advisory Board has recommended denial. The JH Conservatiot?Allianceand Save HistoricJackson Hole have submitted letters and offered testimony recommending deniaL 150 households fiom all over our county have let you know they recommend denial. ifyou - for what ever reason - ignore the clear langtiage of the joint Plan and LDRs— the recommendation of your own professional planning staff — tile unanimous recommendation of your appointed Planning Commission — plus the overwhelming collective recommendation from the residents in your County and various planning NGOs — then you willhave failed this community. Youcertainly owe nothing to the JH ClassicalAcademy who has been working for several months on a state legislative effort to strip the County Commission of all authority over the siting, construction, occupancy and use of its proposed massive commercial campus. in my forty years as a resident in this County I have never seen such a blatant and egregious end-run of home rule. Clearlythe Academy leadership has no respect for local zoning - community sentiment - or the five years of work which went into our Town/County Comprehensive Plan or the two years which followed to craft rural regulations structured to protect their precious character. There is no point in blowing out the building size limit in the rural zone when tile Academy itself is using its money and political connectiorts to strip all local authority over their project anyway. This should be a straightforward decision tomorrow for denial. It is not complicated. Our community is depending on you to take the right vote. Respectfully, Rich Bloom April 15, 2015 tet Teton County Board of County Commissioners raptor P.O. Box 3594 center Jackson, Wyoming 83001 Dear Commissioners, to concepts for Board ol Directors In October 2013, we were encouraged submit comments on Rich Bloom, Treasurer conserving rural areas (see attached letter). Ve shared our perspective on the Patti Boyd preservation and compatible institutional use of rural and agricultural lands, as we Tern Hill believe they benefit land stewardship, wildlife protection and community values. \X1e David Hester have now had the opportunity to review the draft Rural Land Development Christopher Knowlton PorgyMcClelland Regulations (LDRs), and would like to request your additional consideration on a Lisa Lord Price, Secretary parcel-specific concern, as well as a broader concept related to rural parcel Katrina Ryan categorization. Andy Salter, Vice-Chair Roger Smith, Chair Since 2008, Teton Raptor Center has leased the Hardeman Ranch from the Jackson tiole Land Trust. Although we are not the owners of this ranch, we are comtnitted Advisory Council stewards of this iconic property, even it it does not become our permanent program Steve Cain home. We’ve become an integral part of our conimunitys commitment to protect Terry \V. Campbell, D.V.M. and support wildlife. Teton Raptor Center accomplishes this community objective Len Carlman, j.D. via our mission to help birds of prey through education programs, conservation [leather Carleton, D.V.M. Matthew S. Johnston, VMD, initiatives,veterinary treatment and rehabilitative care for injured, ill and orpha ned DABVP-Avian ti tors. Mark Pokras, D.V.M. Bert Rayncs And, for the past six years,Teton Raptor Center has operated under a Conditional Patrick T. Reclig,D.V.M. on iconic already a Kat Taylor Use Permit (CUP) this property, protected by County-held olin F. Turner conservation easement. The agricultural history and rural character of the Hardeman property has been a wonderful fit for our unique needs. In the prc.)posed LDRs, this 28-acre parcel is mapped as R-l even though the built environment on this site is mapped within the Wilson Character District. District 11: Wilson is defined as a complete neighborhood in the adopted 2011 Comprehensive Plan. Given the mapping anti recognition that this special property is uniquely connected to, antI in many ways defines, the downtown Wilson area, we respecttu iiy request that the full Hardeman Ranch parcel remain under the existing Rural designation until it can be more appropriately discussed as part of the Wilson Downtown Community. In a broader context, we would like to share our perspectives on the uses allowed under the R-l. and R-2 designations, which represent lands where we are actively pursuing a permanent presence for Teton Raptor Center’s operations, programs and birds, In the draft regulations, R-2 lands offer opportunities ior a single family home, agriculture, cell towers and utilities, but they preclude assembly uses such as on rs, which are unique, hard to locate and provide inportant Com nun ity benefits. In an effort to litnit the loss of charitable organizations that are agriculturally based with an assembly component providing community engagement and benefit, like Teton Raptor Center, and also entities like 4-Il, Therapeutic Riding or other equestrian groups, we recommend that you continue allowing assemblyuses on R-2 p.o. box 1805 • wilson, wyoming 83014 • www.retonraptorcenter.org • [email protected] • 307.203.2551 parcels of 35 acres or more. And, through the continuation ot a CUP process allow assembly uses on those parcels, which is What IS currently allowed on those parcels under the existing LDRs. Likewise, we recommend that assembly use and the corresponding CUP process be retained for R-1 lands of 140 acres or more. This slightly expanded definition offers a pathway to preservation with community benefits that would help preserve larger iconic itrcels and is consistent ith the Community goal to prevent them from hemg broken iflto .3S-acrehome sites. We are not able to fit our use (nor are organizations that are similar to ours) on what are primarily NC-SF zoned parcels, which will predominately be captured under the R-3 designation in the proposed .LDRs. The NC-SF parcels do nut lend themselves well to our type of program, use and activities. The NC-SF parcels currently don’t allow assembly use, but in the proposed LDRs, R-3 designated parcels will open these neighborhood parcels to assemblyuse. Our two requests are summarized as follows: 1) Please consider removing the 26-acre Hardeman Ranch parcel from the proposed mapping and consider it in the context of the Wilson Character F)isti-ict. 2) Please consider continuing to allowassembly uses on R-I parcels of 140 acres or more and R-2 lands of 3.5acres or more through the CU P process. Thank you for taking the time to review our thoughts in advance of your final vote on Teton County’s Land Development Regulations. Sincerely, T7-7Y<,VST\ 1/’ Roger Smith Amy Brennan McCarthy Founder and Board Chair ExecLitiveDirector Cc: Teton County Planning Comtnissioners Tyler Sinclair, Town and County Planning Director Alex Norton, Jackson/Teton Cou nty Planner Laurie Andrews, Executive Director, Jackson Hole Land Trust Attachment: Letter to Teton County Planning Department, October 21, 2013. p.o. box 1805 • wilson, wyoming 83014 • www.tetonrapwrcenter.org • [email protected] • 307.203.2551 October 21, 2013 ;teton Jackson/Teton County Planning Team raptor Via e-mailonly()[email protected],[email protected], .center fc’edback@tetonjacksonplan,com,[email protected],[email protected]) RE: Concepts for Conserving Natural, Scenic and AgriculturaL Lands in the Rural Areas of Teton County. Dear Teton County Planning Team, We were encouraged to submit comments on concepts for conserving rural areas. Board of Directors We are uniquely positioned to comment, as Teton Raptor Center currently operates Rich Bloom, Treastiret PattiBoyd under a Condition Use Permit (CUP) on a rurally zoned parcel at the Hardeman Dan Forrncin,D.V.M. Ranch. We would like to share our perspective on the preservation and compatible Tern I—jill institutional use of rural and agricultural lands, as we believe they benefit land Christopher Knowlton stewardship, wildlife protection and community values. Additionally, we recpcctfutly PorgyMcClellaisd,Vice-Chair request that the CountyconsiderretainingcornpciU He intl Lot loflcduses tndcr he conch ono I Ed Opler Lisa Lord Price, Secretary Useperlmtprocessin the proposed Pre.servation(PR)and Conservation-I(CN-I) zones. Andy Salter Roger Smith, Chair Tetois Raptor Center has become an integral part of our community’s cornmitment to protect antI support wildlife. Teton Raptor Center accomplishes this community objective through our mission to help birds of prey through education programs, Advisory Council Terry W. Campbell, D.V.M. conservation initiatives, veterinary treatment and rehabilitative care for injured, ill Len Cariman, J.D. and orpha ned raptors. Matthew S. Johnston, VMD, DABVP-Avian Since 2008, Teton Raptor Center has leased the Hardeman Ranch from the ]acksuis Mark Pokras, D.V.M. Hole Land Trust. And, for the past five years, Teton Raptor Center has operated Bert Ra5nes Patrick T. Redig, D.V.M. under a CUP on this conservation easement property. The agricultural history and KatTaylor rural character of the Hardeman property has been a wonderful fit for our cinique John F. Turner needs. Teton Raictor Center provides awe-inspiring flight deinonstrarionsas part of out live raptor learning experiences, which depend upn adeq nate open space. Open natural areas (awayfrom cars, buildings and power lines) critically support the rehabilitative therapies for birds in our care prior to returning them to the wild. The conservation land, which offers attributes of a nature center, enhances the overall educational experience provided by Teton Raptor Center. The success of our program and how we have served the community s conservation ethics could serve as example of stewardship and institutional use best practices on rural lands. Be it the Teton Raptor Center, Therapeutic Riding, the Boy Scouts, Future Farmers of America, or a range management institute of the future — rural lands may be best served by retaining institutional use options through conditional use permits. We are contemplating an expansion of our program and in our site explorations to date, the NC-SF tCN-2) smaller parcels located predunsinately in rural residential neighborhoods are not a good fit for otir institutional use so we have not explored any of these properties We have looked at (and discarded) a number of commercially zoned properties, as they will not fit our unique programmatic needs. Our search has led us to focus on current rurally zoned parcels (PR and CN- 1). p.o. box 1805 • wilson, wyoming 83014 • www.tctunraptorccnter.org • [email protected] • 307.203.2551 in the draft LDRs discussion, as we understand it, all currently zoned rural lands would be broken into two Zones: Preservation (PR) anti Lonservation- I ((ZN-i). These lands would be precluded trem activities authorized by CUPs test any institutional use even if an ideal tit was identitied between project and property. We understand that the concept is CC) move deveLopment to cutuplete neighborhoods, while concurrently maintaining options for landowners to preserve their land. Put simply, operations such as the Tetun Raptor Center, which are agricultural in nature and require large unobstructed tight areas both tor education and rehabilitation, cannot operate in a complete neighborhood. Huwever,we believe operations such as ours could provide practical options for rural landowners. The current CUP process is rigorous and applicants who propose institutional uses on rural lands could have uses pegged to the key goals of the new comprehensive plan. Considering certain types of institutional uses through the CUP process on Preservation (PR) and Conservation-l (CN-l) parcels would be a way to achieve the repurposing and stewardship of existing agricultural and rural lands, as they transition away from traditional practices due to the inevitable economic and development pressures they constantly face. We respectfullyrequest that the County consider retaining compatible institutional uses under the conditional use permit process in the proposed PreservitiOi)(PR) and Conservation-i ((ZN-i) zones. Sincerely, Roger Smith Amy Brennan McCarthy Founder and Board Chair Executive Director Cc: Teton County Board of Commissioners Teton County Planning Commissioners p.o. box 1805 • wilson wyoming83014 • w\sv.tttonr,IprwIcontcr.o[ti• [email protected] • 307.203.2551 Terry Sincerely, Please frozen Driggs find years I availability face A years. businesses I This housing. Dear Vail know find Wed number Terry Ic this Board in is Huciqens as it Honorable 1/2/2019 support iiads. or that to the very Resort’s somewhat their Hudgens Of I Alpine express of live of Valley. would some County commendable very We housing. only 10:36 in this at the Commissioners, are of my do good AM Commissioners viable and 6:00 incredible my area approaching the proposed strong I other am neighbors in businesses choice same. off the that aware support of measures given morning As Sagebrush to Vail that a object continue I have our critical know is of amendment proposing a so Vail to current number been to you you improve juncture Drive Resorts the in are forced their can housing plan and of to aware, witness the jobs. JHGT proposed where take as have to availability they shut situation. action our employees the been the of do down shortage amendment services thousands Golf to not a If of member house due you want low have and that and to haven’t cost more to of resorted their to of rising we workers live their housing Jackson Tennis of rely inability done in cost their proximity Master on to that it of living Hole in will employees in to Jackson. housing make Master Plan a no find Golf while, in to longer their to workers that low and is allow here please 1 cost cars commute Tennis be of Plan in the which for readily over housing make Jackson. additional most (JHGT) the is in available. fl the all the or critical past I for due drive wish trailer dark employee several the to issues other over on units. past cost to we 10 and I ]H classical accademy David Jaquith Wed 1/2/2019 11:15AM Board Of County Commissioners First let me start by saying that I have called this valley home for over 28 years. I have worked here, lived here, am raising a fainil’ here, ana have loved this community. That bwnq said, this is the FIRSTand only time I have ever felt compelled to reach out and voice an opinion to local government. I can aghast that you would ever consider for a moment bowing down to Foster Preiss’political pressure. Are you all afraid that lie willsue you if you don’t give him what he wants? Why even think about under mining the comprehensive plan, of destroying the valley’srural character? Ifyou open this Paridnia’s bus, end change land development egulations for the entire valley,this willbe the final straw that completely destroys all we have carrie to love about this place. the Gill’sare more that able to sell off 35 acre parcels of property for ters of millions of dollars. Bowing down to Foster’s pressure willbe the beginning of the end. Please do what you were elected to do and protect my family and this valley,and don’t allow unnecessary th’stiurtion of character and insure that in the future EVERYONEplays by the rules. Thanks tar you time. David Jaqtuth 3g7)73c) lhtt3b - home (307)413-5379 cell iY 83014 Rural building size Wed 1/2/2019 11:22AM To Board 01 County Cornrnissioneis No, dont think we should increase the building size of the whole rural zone just to suit the Classic Academy. It seems like theyre playing heavy handed tatcs just to get whatever they want. They should make the school work according to the existing rules. respectfully, Robert Wemnple 3022 Alpine View Lane o)I •1o Comments on Vail’sproposed amendment to Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Master Plan Patricia McDonald Wed 1/2/2019 1:08PM Board Of County Commissioners 2 attachments H KB) Letter to VailInc. May 112016 v2.doc; Vailapplication to amend JHG&TMaster Plan,docx; Dear Board of Teton County Commissioners, I I am writing to express my opposition to Vail Resort’s proposal to amend the 2002 JHG&T Master Plan and allow a seasonal employee trailer park. own Cabin #2 at Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club (address 1147E. Wild Rye Drive, Jackson, WY 8300 ),which is several hundred yards from the proposed site. Virtually all JHG&T’s homeowners and surrounding neighbors are opposed to Vail’sproposal, for a number of reasons. These include 1. Vail’s lack of transparency and good faith throughout this process; 2. its existing ability to build additional employee housing under the current Master Plan: 3. the precedent which approval of the proposal would set county-wide; and 4. the negative environmental consequences of the proposal. First, from the onset Vail has shown a striking lack of good faith in this process. Vail quietly initiated its original proposal to Teton County for a 13-site employee trailer park in June 2015 at a pre-application conference that included a county planner, the general manager of JHG&T and a representative of Pierson Land Works. Vail did not bother to inform any of the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis homeowners or neighboring communities about its proposal ;1th until we found out about it at the hour, as it was poised for final approval on May 3, 2016, with construction imminent. Thankfully this Board of County Commissioners postponed its scheduled hearing on the proposal due to homeowner outcry and the fact that Vail had failed to post the required site notice. On May 11, 2016, 104 members of the JHG&T community and neighboring homeowners signed a letter to Vail Resorts Chairman/CEO Robert Katz asking him to withdraw the trailer park proposal and instead initiate discussion with local homeowners and neighbors (see attachment). We also published the letter in a paid ad in the local newspaper in order to inform the greater Jackson Hole community about what was going on. Mr. Katz never responded to our letter, but we continued to pressure Vail for information and answers. When Vice President/General Manager of Grand Teton Lodge Co. Alex Klein and JHG&T General Manager Guy Evans finally held a neighborhood meeting to present their rationale for the trailer park, a number of neighbors showed up to inform them that we fully supported their need for additional employee housing, but not in the form of a trailer park, and we offered to work with them on other solutions, Meanwhile we formed the Coalition of JHG&T Neighbors, and several local homeowners filed a successful appeal that forced preparation of an updated Environmental Assessment. Vail is now back with a revised proposal to amend the 2002 JHG&T original Master Plan, including several new housing options along with the ubiquitous trailer park. I would add that Vail’s revised proposal also suddenly includes the addition of a cell tower---another example of how Vail/JHG&T is attempting to do something without informing the neighbors, but instead trying to slip it through the process. Obviously JHG&T stands to gain financially if such a tower is authorized as they will collect large construction and lease tees. The Planning Commission disapproved it because it would tower above the existing trees and be an eyesore. While a cell tower may well be needed in the area, there are other options and this is not the right way to accomplish it. Second, Vailalready has the right to build additional employee housing as authorized in the Master Plan, but the bottom line is that they don’t want to pay for that kind of housing. The original plan allows them to add on to the current dorm-style employee housing, or build new townhouses, on a specified adjacent site. The existing employee housing is tasteful and consistent with the neighborhood character, and we ftillysupport Vail building more of the same as currently allowed. However, Mr. Klein admitted at one of the neighborhood meetings that Vail doesn’t want to spend the necessary money to build such buildings. This in spite of the fact that Vail is a hugely profitable company that is now spending millions for additional employee housing in other states. According to Vail Resort’s annual reports, in 2017 the company netted $593 million on gross revenues of $1,890,000,000, and in 2018 it netted $616 million on gross revenues of $2,010,000,000. Chairman and CEO Robert Katz received total compensation in the three years of 2016, 2017, and 2018 of approximately $15 million. Vail recently bought a Canadian resort for over $1 billion. Moreover, Vail has committed to spend $30 million for employee housing in neighboring western states. An Oct. 18, 2017 Denver Post article stated: “In 2015 (Vail) earmarked $30 millionfor partnerships to develop housing in its resort communities in Colorado, Utah and California. Last year, the company inked a 99-year discounted lease for a 28-acre parcel it owns near Keystone to a developer who is planning a 196-unit village of affordable units. That Wintergreen village deal — which gives Vail Resorts a lease for 36 of the 196 new units — accounts for about $6 million from Vail Resorts’ $30 million pledge. Vail Resorts also converted office space at a Colorado Mountain Express headquarters in Silverthorne to residential and has allowed Summit County to rezone a parcel the company owned to develop 66 affordable, for-sale units.” Obviously Vailcan afford to build some nice employee housing. We do not understand why Vail is determined to “poor boy” Jackson Hole rather than spending some of its ample funds here to collaborate with the local community and build actual housing units, rather than expecting their seasonal employees to bring their own trailers. Third, approval of Vail’sproposal could well set a controversial precedent for meeting additional employee housing needs elsewhere in our valley, Imagine lithe owners of Shooting Star, Three Creek, Snake River Sporting Club, Teton Pines or other local resort communities proposed to solve their employee Attachments Patricia Thank Sincerely, the actual obstructionists been trailers. proud In community. wildlife Road was clubhouse, neighborhood Resource site Vail’s Fourth, housing summary, wurld. is finally kept. for proposal of housing full you move McDonald Vail’s the shortages And the of Overlay, for Virus-free able and We affordable cottonwood the chance through while proposal your in or that would to immediately homeowners are this NIMBYs. buy careful is and by Vail also to planned consistent my amount building www.ava my would housing glimpse immediately has trees concerned front cabin consideration We offered adjacent impact resort and to and yard on-site are development our with at st. a neighbors rezoning willows, JHG&T corn just and to incomparable community. that, adjacent critical our to “screen” trailer asking around the of neighborhood if in these a adjacent that wildlife Teton parks. of trailer immediately 2007. to that the ]HG&T the Grand could In comments, wildlife. County proposed Vail the park habitat, neighborhood. it As to was set a Teton you 10 and do are is channel the across for years Pathway authorized, the The not open know, its and trailer National the stage right values. trying JHG&T that space, natural the for of current park Many thing along for the all I road to lived Park. there We many community the Gros block from natural beauty, and local zoning Spring from continue there hard would It Ventre difficult spend the Vail’s would wildlife us, resources, work wildlife Gulch does I highway, regularly no cares which real the to River, battles be that regulation tour not stand Road. money need habitat, located about was you allow Vail’s companies in and watched in ready the for designed do the I’ve these to JHG&T for open directly as past wildlife more to provide future. lived any to to keep moose, promises values spaces, collaborate the bring employee new neighborhood with across off migration Teton size, its and visitors trailer these and employees elk, unified kind, to the on County deer, is housing. with screen corridor, parks values in street determined from color, Jackson design values. them bison, one with around in the from in or We Teton in in of mind elements, maintenance appropriate, number eagles, the Hole this the The the are to the Teton County. conserve and main goal. most not proposed since world owls, of is being and County entrance special occupants an 1971. safe, Approval up yard foxes them. sense asset trailer Spring attractive Natural have places When and to to of We in park the of the Gulch not the other ore I in Neighbors Ask Vail to Withdraw RV Park Proposal at JHG&T 11 May 2016 Robert A. Katz Chaitrnan and CEO Vail Resorts 390 Interlocken Crescent Broomfield, Colorado 80021 Dear Mr. Katz, The undersigned residents and families of the Jackson 1-loleGolf and Tennis (JHG&T] community and a number of home owners from surrounding neighborhoods respectfully request that Vail Corporation withdraw its proposal DEV 2016-00 1 from consideration before the Teton County Board of Commissioners. The proposal would create a Recreational Vehicle (RV) campground directly across from the JHG&Tclubhouse on Spring Gulch Road to house employees April 15- November 15 each year. We believe the project is fundamentally flawed both substantively atid procedurally. We take polite exception to the following: 1] At no time did Vail Corporation notify or communicate its intention to build stich an RVcampground to any of the residents within or near the cornmclnity in spite of the fact it had commissioned engineering work on the site months ago. To date, we have received absolutely no communication from Vail about the project. 2) The 2002 master plan for Jl-lG&T,the controlling document for all development within the community (a comprehensive document which took years to fully develop] makes no reference whatsoever to a seasonal RVcampground. Such a campground was never contemplated and is both inconsistent and contradictory to the design standards established under the master plan. 3] An environmental assessment of the project, as required under the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) for any new development located in the natural Resource Overlay (NRO), was inexplicably waived by the County planning staf1 We believe such an assessment is required and must be conducted. 4] The County did not amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD] for JHG&Twhich is required before any new development can be considered. 5] Vail Corporation did not post the required notice on site prior to the convening of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),thereby causing the BCCto postpone consideration of the issue on May 3rd. Fortunately the Chairperson took public comment on the 3rd while simultaneously delaying the formal hearing until a future date. 6) There is no precedent for establishing an RVcampground within a strictly single family home residential community. RVcampgrounds exist in a number of other public areas in the Valley and we fully support them, but not in single family residential areas. This is a precedent the BCCshould not establish. There are times when companies, even good companies like Vail, simply make bad decisions. This is one of them. Your actions are in direct conflict with your own stated corporate values to “preserve our natural environments and contribute to the success of local communities.” DEV20 16-001 would negatively affect our migratory wildlife, our unique plant ecosystem, and our local community. The best and most honorable action for the Company to take now would be to withdraw this ill- considered proposal. We would then suggest that Vail sit down with the affected residents (e.g. the “customers”) in the JHG&Tcommunity in an honest and transparent way to work out an acceptable solution. In the end, we all want more affordable housing for employees. We suspect that a good faith conversation, de linked from the threat of the current proposal (which over 90% of the homeowners oppose), would lead to a better solution for all parties. If Vail chooses not to do so, we will regretfully continue to pursue all administrative and legal courses of action to put a stop to this poorly conceived initiative. We sincerely hope that will not be necessary. Ben and Ashley Agee Joan Anzelmo ELizabeth Benson Jim and Cathy Bterrnan James P. Bonham Frank and Nancy Boyer George Belier and Katherine Brooks Jan Brook Kathy and Bruce Bummer Larry and Ellen catt Stanford and Chris Clinton, Jr David coon Jim and Safa Darwiche Joe and Patti Denny George and Betsy Dreher Rayner England William and Mary Fausone Robert and Mary Alice Fitton Jim and Carol Flick Tony and Joy Greene Bob and Nanci Halper Tim and Judy Hefferran Joanne Hennes Richard and Nancy Hirst Chancy and Vicki Hutson Terry and Dell Johnson Brad and Claire l Cc: James C. O’Donnell Alex Klein Guy Evans rural zone changes Sandy Sbuptrine W(?d 1/2/2019 1:57 PM Board Of County Commissioners Dear Commissioners- Making universally applied changes to rural zone regulations for the benefit of a single development application endangers/diminishes the rural character so long protected through the Comprehensive Plan. Ifthe county responded to every ‘dream’ conceived for our community, it would be a very short time before the appeal to visitors and residents is lost and strained infrastructure is over worked and not functioning for the health safety and welfare of the county. Not to mention, the reassurance of planning and zoning made meaningless to neighborhoods. It is my i:nderstanding that planners (staff and commission) have recommended denial of changes to rural zoning that could be applied in all those zones across the county. Please support those recommendations. And please keep in mind the vision articulated in the Comprehensive Plan Sincerely, Sandy Siruptrine ‘NO’on Classical Academy’s request for more density Louis Wang Wed 1/2/2019 3:49 PM Tc Board Of County Commiss,oners Hamilton Smith Dear County Commissioners, The Comp Plan transferred density from the rural zone to town in order to our rural lands. Now the wealthy and well- connected want higher rural zone density for a ‘good cause.’ It is a good cause, but a idea. The Classical Academy has other options and they should select one of them. If you vote yes you will be paving the path to ruin: • You will ‘seed’ additional requests for higher density, lots of them. • We will end up with higher density in town and higher density in the rural zone. Please take the recommendation of the professional planning staff and deny the request. Approving this ‘one-time’ request will prove to be a very slippery slope. Respec tfu Ily, Louis Wang, Save Historic Jackson Hole EW:Tomorrow’s LDRRural Building Size Decision Natalia Macker Wed1/2/2019 3:51 PM m BoardOf CountyCommissioners Natalia D. Macker Vice Chair Teton County Commission 307.732.8406 (direct) 307.413.6413 (mobile) iHJntyvly.goV From: Greg M Dear commissioner Mocker, Several years ago my family and I decided to buy our first ever house in Jackson. This was a very calculated move and was based in no small part on the the community’s commitment to preserving the rural nature of the valley. We were impressed by how much time and effort went into writing important documents like the Comprehensive Plan. It is cleat that the desire of the community is to allow only specialized and minimal projects/structures in designated Rural areas. It just so happens that our house is one of the closest proximity to the proposed Classical Academy campus. Sadly, the amount of traffic, light and noise pollution we will endure is going to cause us to reconsider where we live. This is our bad luck, and tiot why I write to you. I am writing because Itruly believe in two basic tenants: 1) Changing the allotted building size from 10Kto 301 2) Making short-term exceptions to well thought out rules will have long-term consequences that will go well beyond your term on the Commission. This is not a decision to help one school (funded by a very influential local resident) rather it is a decision to change the very look and feel of the rural community across the whole County. I beg of you to have the courage, wisdom and foresight to take the long view here. Please put your political affiliations aside, and consider the wide-reaching implications of making such an exception. The Classical Academy is a great school and given the resources of its I I reason benefactor I have no doubt it will survive and thrive in our community. want it to. would just like it to do so without ruining the we moved to Jackson in the first place. Regards, Greg Mattiko 2700 W Peregrine Ln Jackson, WY.83001 30k Buildings greg bigler Wed 1/2/2019 3:57 PM lu Board Of County Commissioners I urge you to deny the changes to the LDRs that would increase the building limits across the county or even for the particular petitioner. As a resident of the county and South Park in particular, this would open a pandora’s box of issues from growth and environmental issues Deny ]H Classical Academy request. Virginia Becker Wed 1/2/2019 6:12 PM To:Board Of County Commissioners Dear Commissioners, writing to ask that you decide to support the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, and not allow the Jackson Hole Academy an exemption in zoning. It seems very unfair to people who live near the Academy site, to forever change the character of their neighborhood. Ifthis is granted, It also sets a precedent for other businesses to disregard the controls on growth & development. I have been visiting or living in this valley since 1972. I fear the growth that has occurred in the ensuing years is close to spoiling the character of the town & valley. I now own a condo in the Aspen’s and plan to retire here full time. I keep wondering if the crowding and changes in town are too much. It’s very important to contain growth, preserve the historic, and rural quality of the valley. If not, there is a risk of “shooting the golden goose,” to quote Mardy Murie. Thank you for considering my opinion, & good luck in the process. Virginia Graftori Becker, Psy. D. Clinical Psycliclcgist retired CONFIDENTIALITYNOTICE:This email commLlnication may contain private, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and permanently cteiote all copies of this email including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable state and/or federal reqLlirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such information. ]H Classical Academy FREDH BECKER Wed 1/2/2019 6:27PM Board Of County Commissioners Dear Commissioners: I have been visiting Jackson for approximately 25 years; mainly to ski, but also to hike and camp in Grand Teton NP and Yellowstone NP. Four years ago I purchased a condo in the Aspens and am spending my first winter here and am planning to spend many more winters here in my retirement. The rural character of the valley defines Jackson and Wilson. Continued growth and development threatens this rural character and the ambience of the valley that makes it a special place. It is very important to protect the open spaces for future generations for ranch land, wildlife,scenic vistas and the wonderful nighttime darkness. I think it is totally disrespectful of the JH Classical Academy to be seeking a variance to the 2012 Comprehensive Plan instead of working within t. I hope the commission willdeny the rule change sought by JH Classical Academy. Sincerely Fred Becker 3720 North Lake Creek Drive Wilson, WY Within the physical corld of listening and patiently watching there is a spiritual connection that goes beyond spoken words. The paddling world quiets me and the exposure both physical and emotional makes the entire day an ongoing form of prayer. (after C. Duff). cii’5 Z1 Deny increase in building size! Wud 1/2/2019 6:55 PM To:Board Of County Commissioners Dear Commissioners: It is unacceptable to increase building size in rural areas! South Park Loop is absolutely not appropriate for such a proposed building by the ClassicalAcademy. The Academy should build their school where it is legallyallowed not change our laws and character to suit their own need! This is obvious to most people livingin the rural areas of Jackson Hole! Regards, Jessie Lang Stuart Lang Alexander Lang 4155 South Pan Looo cksor, 4Jy Sent from my iPhone cIl ‘ JH Classical Academy Mark Schuftheis Wed 1/2/2019 9:16 PM To Board Of County Commissioners I cannot attend the Jan 3rd meeting on the proposed rule change affecting building size iii rural areas, but I willkeep my comment here short and to the point. Please say no to permanently increasing allowed building size in rciralareas, the 9994 rule should stay as it is currently written. Thank you, Mark Schultheis 3245 W King Eider Jackson, WY83009 JH ClassicalAcademy Amy Brooks Wed 1/2/2019 9:45 PM Board Of County Commissioners Dear Commissioners Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinions regarding the building of the JH CIasiceI Academy. We live in Rafter J and we woLild be heart broken to see a building the size of a WalMart being constructed on South Park Loop. Please consider the people living in this area and how their lives will be affected by this. As this is a private school it is not accessible to all people living in leton County. It would seem to make more sense to consider building more rentals and affordable housing. Teton County has a wonderful school district and while rn scire the JH Classical Academy is a very good school, is it really necessary for them to build such a monstrosity? Please do riot pass the reqLiest from the JH Classical Academy. Thank you. Amy Brooks C!I), 5O proposed amendment to allow buiding site for trailers near the entrance to Jackson Golf and Tennis Thu 1/3/2019 9:43 AM Th:Board Of County Commissioners I am writing to the commissioners who are considering the amendment to the Master Plan adjacent to Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis property. My husband and I are landowners at JHGT, lot 19, Craig and Patricia Bardman. We would be opposed to building trailer sites adjacent to the clubhouse. Please consider this request when making your decisions that willaffect the integrity of the land being considered. Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Michael Rachlin Thu 1/3/2019 1030 AM To:Board Of County Commissioners CcWendy Meynng .weridyLomprnjhcorn>; 1 itticnn:i i (203 KB) JHGTLetter - JR2pdf; Dear Commissioners I I am a Home Owner at Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis and have attached my letter in opposition of the proposed changes to the Master Plan that governs our community at Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis by authorizing the construction of 13 concrete RB pads directly across from the Clubhouse. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Rachlin, AlA, LEEDAP Partner .\C1l LI 8640 National Boulevrd Culver CIty,CAt0732 310.203.3400 [email protected] Yesterday’svote Karen Jerger Fri 1/4/2019 5:43 AM T Board Of County Commissioners Dear Commissioners, Thank you for voting down the Classical Academy proposal to alter the Comp Plan restrictions in rural zones. Sincerely, Karen Jerger and Chuck Harris 0I - 55 Comments on Amendment to the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Master Plan; AMD2OJ8-0001 Paul DArnours Fri1/4/2019 3:37PM Board Of County Commissioners Natalia Macker 1attacl rnurits (19MB) 20190104 Letter to BCC(JHGTMaster Plan Amend).pdf; Dear Commissioners, Please find attached comments regarding the proposed amendment to the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Master Plan. Please let me know ifyou have any trouble opening the attachment. Thank you, Paul Paul E. D’Arnours Hess DAmours & Krieger, LLC RD. 8ox449 (US Ma Jackson. WY 3001 (307) 733-7881 (307) 733-7882 (fax) pgjhdkattorneys.com NOTICE: This email message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521, is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to [email protected] that you have received the message in error, then destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you. ______ Frank Hess* HESS D’Art/TOURS& KRIEGER, LLC (307) 733-7881 Phone Paul 5. D’Amours ATTORNEYS AT LAW (307) 733-7882 Fax Nicole G. Krieger* 30 East Simpson St. [email protected] P.O. Box 449 Karin Larson Admitted in WY Jackson, Wyoming 63001 Legal Assistant Admitted in WY, ID&CO January 4, 2019 Teton County Board of County Commissioners 200 S. Willow St. Jackson, WY 83001 Via email Re: Comments on Amendment to the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Master Plan; AMD2OI$-0001 Dear Commissioners. Please accept the following comments regarding the proposed Amendment to the Jackson Hole Golf’and Tennis Master Plan (the “Master Plan”) on behalf of my clients Joan Anzelrno, Gregg Ward. Patty McDonald, and Art Miller, who own property at the following addresses which are subject to the current Master Plan, and which are in close proximity to the Golf Maintenance and Employee Housing area (“GMEH”): Joan Anzelmo (Estates of JTIG&TFiling l& 2) 270 E Cottonwood Drive Jackson, WY 63001 Gregg Ward (Estates of Ji IG&T Filing l& 2) 175 F Cottonwood Drive Jackson. WY $3001 Patty McDonald (lie Cabins) 847 E Wild Rye Drive Jackson. WY 83001 Art Miller (The Homesites, filing 4) 635 E Wild Rye Drive Jackson, WY $3001 These individuals will he negatively affected (more so than the general Public) by the proposed amendment that would permit the construction of what amounts to an RV Park within the GMEH and its associated increase in noise, activity and density on the proposed site, as well as the effect on local wildlife. If approved, the amendment would allow for a substantial change in the character of neighborhood by fundamentally changing the type of employee housing allowed from a permanent housing type to one that is non—permanentand inherently transitory. prepared would proposed to 2012/2013, Resort. further degrades Teton provides condition. neither area not 2012/2013 Features County Section The the result proposed directly County aerial expand Attached is possible. development when expand development natural very Ventre As within character permeability property is This subarea and Section of develops Comprehensive The 4.3.1 of them; encouraged.... that visually for these RV in you as Attached the around housing proposed_amend important photo the CONSERVATION an .f to is the the amendment_is the Comprehensive pads Rivers both Jackson 9.1 consider requirements landfornis in required it the should Comp of area as The rights. it; of buffered proposed existing is amendment footpt’int of and the Exhibit the on the the not as east historically it consideration should the that is if for Jackson P1017 time Hole Exhibits does NRC) Plan the Teton footprint areas by characterized this designed be Teton incentives and wildlife Redevelopment allowed is from and the A more GMEH WOS amendment the implement Golf& not_consistent (the or arc proposed more not nent that northeast is Plan, of must Comp County County vegetation North entitlements, B Comp Hole met. adopted. t)ccupwd an older “Comp restore and Subarea movement to were and natural does floor natural cannot aerial p. Tennis does be increase to Plan. entitlements Highway Golf C IV—67 amendment Plan Comprehensive development by Land included consistent not of wildlife area in reduce are Plan”) natural not photo by medium be Page than and the than vith projects subarea 2017 in result was and depictions between would (emphasis wildlife the Development but accomplished. render the 2 maintenance should and .tLs 89 when of of adopted. as friendly it landforms Tennis density workforce. (the provision mu elbow with 6 of to by the the is attachments to benefit in should should that the the fin the permeability Grand today the compliance low “2017 Plan following: be of area GMEH added). the ft two design between Master Planned Jackson the designed ojecfo Comp area are As density the includes goals Regulations and of of building be be Teton while rivers. proposed EA”). The can The the locally residents area not “more preserved The encouraged to vegetation, best Plan P]an, and with be existing Hole the the GMEH but National resort workforce Resort respecting to proposed for successful. that The seen is The practices inctease oriented was natural” Environmental objectives Snake rather ‘ou the_romp RV the the Golf in of (the is future development to from development area LDRs, construction the pad a adopted, Character must should more_natural Park, hut to the relatively reduces and and “LDRs”), amendment area housing existing services wildlife sites than as restore if this of extent rather Plan. be of but Tennis New Gros it non— In this and not in photo, guided but the existed it Defining this is it; Analysis relation was natural further of which and rather Teton case, Club does than the the by in in. it Thejiroposed amendment does not restore_natural_landjorins_and i’uetati?. The 2017 BA describes the area of the proposed RVpads as follows: The proposed housing development will be constructed to the northeast of the existing maintenance building Figure 8. The southwestern portion of the proposed development site has historical! served various purposes including employee parking staging of golf course equipment and supplies storage of equipment building materials and supplies during resort construction temporary trailer offices dutin resort construction and recycle trailer parking (ZCV 2016). It is currently used for employee parking and trash recycling receptacle placement. The northeastern portion of the proposed development site is undeveloped mesic deciduous ibrest dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood (Fopu/us angustijoha). The mesic deciduous forest is fragmented throughout the development area and much of it contains underground infrastructure for irrigation indicating previous disturbance within the forested areas. 2017 BA, p. 21. A prior Environmental Analysis prepared by Biota in 2002 (the “2002 EA”), when the Master Plan was approved, described this area covered by mesic deciduous covertype as “Less Suitable for Development” and admonished that “Building in these covertypes should be avoided if at all possible and. if not. impacts to them should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and/or mitigate.” 2002 BA, pp. 28-29 (emphasis added). (Copies of pertinent portions of the 2002 BA are attached hereto as Exhibit D.) As a result, the 2002 BA recommended that any new development be located within the footprint of the then—already disturbed area: It is recommended that additional maintenance and employee needs be accommodatedwithin the area encompassmg the niaintenance facility, the golf course superintendent’s house, and the area in bebveeii. 2002 EA, P. 31 (emphasis added). In addition, drawings submitted in 2003 in conjunction with the Phase I final Development Plan for the Single Family Lots and Affordable Ilousing and Phase III Final Development Plan for The Club Ilouse & Employee Housing depicted the “Limits of Disturbance” of the GMEH area. (Copies of the referenced drawings indicating limits of disturbance are attached hereto as Exhibit B.) The line demarcating the limits of disturbance ran in an approximately northeasterly direction from the northeast corner of the maintenance building to Spring Gulch Road, and did not extend into those areas now seeking to be developed by RV pads. For the proposed amendment to the Master Plan to meet the goals and objectives of the Comp Plan, the area east and northeast of the maintenance building would be revegetated so that there was no indication of any disturbance in the area that was otherwise deemed “Less Suitable for Development” and deemed beyond the “1 imits of Disturbance.” Further disturbance and Page 3 of 6 development of this area does not “restore natural land forms and vegetation” as required by the Comp Plan. Theproposed amendn?entis not designed to increase wild!ifepermeability. The 2017 LA concluded that there would be minimal long—termimpacts on the wildlife habitat, including the WFGI) crucial moose winter and yearlong ranges and the elk and mule dear habitat and movement corridors. However, it appears that such findings assume no human occupancy of the RV pad sites from November 15 to April 15.1 Experience tells us that development of previously undeveloped or underdeveloped areas generally reduces the wildlife permeability of an area. So, whether or not temporal restrictions are imposed upon the proposed RV pad sites, the proposed amendment does not meet the requirement of increasing wildlife permeability.2 it is worth noting that the 2002 LA recommended against a proposed expansion of the Snack Shop that is locatedjust northeast of the propose RV pad site because the area was “a migration route for elk traveling through JIIGTC to the Gros \7entre riparian zone” and because it “would encroach upon riparian habitat and areas considered ‘less suitable’ for development.” 2002 LA, p. 30. piposed cmiel7thnentexpands t jootprmt and entitlements of the Jackson I-Jo/c Golf and Thnnis Cltth Resort. By all measures, the proposed amendment both expands the actual footprint of the resort by allowing development of an area that was previously undeveloped and deemed “less suitable for development;” and allows a use (i.e., an entitlement) that was previously not permitted, thus expanding an entitlement of the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club Resort, Moreover, to the extent the applicant is now seeking to have the previous imposed square footage limitations be disregarded — see Staff Report. p. 11 - the proposed amendment would further expand entitlements of the Jackson Hole Golf and. Tennis Club Resort contrary to the requirements of the Comp Plan. Fom the above—noted ieasons, the p]oposcd amcndment to the M’msteiPlan is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comp Plan as required by Section 4.3.l.F of the L1)Rs,and theiefoie must not be appio ed A September 2018 Update to the 2017 EA, entitled Development Impact Analysis, reaches the same conclusion that there will be minimal long—termimpacts on wildlife habitat, hut removes the assumption of there being no occupancy between November 15 and April 15, without any explanation or justification. 2 The Staff Report pul’portsto address wildlife permeability on page 14, hut fails to include a statement that the proposed amendment “increases wildlife permeability” as required by the Comp Plan. JHGTC has recently seiit out an announcement that Holes 9, 10 and 11, which are in proximity to this area of the Snake Shop and proposed RY pad sites, “are closed during the Winter months for animal migration and habituation.” (A CO of the announcement is attached hereto as Exhibit F.) JHGTC has also posted a notice that there shall he “No Access! No Dogs” in the area, as it is “Critical Moose Habitat.” (A picture of the posted notice is attached hereto as Exhibit G.) Page4 of 6 Permitacre The_jiroposedametidment is not in compliance with the LDRs because it vioIatej( proltibitwn on campgrounds within the Natural_Reso uiç .0verlaji, (tilt! seelçsjgreallrrçditce the setback rgjpurement from ft ijver clzaiznel_withoutany shrnvig of “uiiIqj circumstances Q1 (tilt! COillinliuitJ’ objective for, resort development.” The proposed ame ndment violates tI?cprohibition on campgrounds within the NRO. In addition to the proposed amendment not being consistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the proposed amendment is not in compliance with the LDRs because the LDRs prohibit a campground within the NRO. As can be seen from the table included in Section 3.2.2.C. the pertinent portion of which is copied below, campgrounds are permitted within the R—lzone only with a conditional use permit. hut only if located outside of the NRO. C. Use Standards applicable to use are provided in this subsection, Where a cross-ref brorin is listed sea the referenced division or section for ackJlional standards. Altstandards in Article 6 are applicable unless stated otherwise. 1 Allowed Uses 2 Use_Requirements GSA Density Scale :1 Parking(lain) AffordableWorkiorceHousing (mm) (max) (max)! Div. 6.2.) Units (mm)fDv. 6 ) Open Space Agriculture(6.t.B.) Y n/a ri/a n/a n/a exempt Reation 140 ac ri/a See E2. . independent calculallon Dude/Guest Ranch c 70 ac sea EZ 1/lu independent calculation flesidentiat 8000sf Detached S:ngle-Fainity habitable 0000017sf + 1’3 ic 2’du tSi,4,R.) ° excluding (Exp(-15,49-f 1.59’Ln(sf)))/2.176 basement Lodging Campground (out of NRO) c 70 ac sites! independent calculation Tr2— Ihe applicants proPosed RV pad sites appear to fall within the definition of Campground in the IDRs. A map of the proposed RV pad sites shows that at least a majority of 11 of the 13 pad sites are located within the NRf) in violation of Section 3.2.2.C. of the LDRs. See Exhibit C. As a result, the proposed amendment to the Master Plan is not in compliance with the LDRs as required by Section 4.3.1 .F. of the .LDRs and, therefore, must not be approved. i7y.cproposedamendnwntseeks to recitwethe setback rçpgreme1?t from a river chal?nel wit ho Ut tin)’_shoumg of unique circumstances of and communityobjective foi reso Section 4,3.1 .F of the LDRs permits certain standards for development of a Planned Resort master plan to differ from those included in the LDRs only when such difference is “due to the unique circumstances of and community objectives for, resort development.” There has been absolutely no showing that the need to reduce the setback from a river channel in the ease Page 5 of6 of the proposed amendment is due to unique circumstances of or communit objectives for, resort development. Rather, it simply seems to he the “variance” that the applicant needs to proceed with its intended development, and nothing more. As a result, the proposed reduction in the setback from a river channel violates Section 4.3.LF of the LDRs. While my clients object to the proposed amendment to the Master Plan to allow RV pads in the GMEH area because the amendment is not consistent with the Comp Plan or in compliance with the LI)Rs. they also believe that the location of an RV park is simply contrary to the character of their neighborhood, will result in harm to wildlife and precious habitat, and will result in an increase in noise and activity near their homes. Moreover, they object to any removal of square footage limitations included in the original Master Plan, as well as the request for a blanket variance for the river channel setback. As a tcsult, I hereby respectfully request on behalf of my clients that you deny the proposed amendment to the Master Plan to the extent it would permit RVs to be used as employee housing, allows expansion of the square ibotage allowance for employee housing currently included in the Master Plan, or grants a variance from the 150’ setback from a river channel without satis’ing the criteria for a vaiance under the LDRs. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Paul E. I)’Amours Enclosures Page 6 of 6 C C II U C, C U ‘C) C, C, 4 1’ 4 C’ C’ C’ ‘C C— ‘C C-’, U 2 > C, = C C C C) 2 C C, C, ‘C C C C p. P. C JACKSON © ENVIRONMENTAL Copyright Biota TETON Vail Jackson, HOLE Research 2002, Resorts AvonCO COUNTY, Biota P. May Prepared Prepared P.O. Wyoming GOLF 0. Research Jox I3ox , 8’620-O9S9 Development and 2002 57S 95) AND For By 83002$S78 WYOMING and Consulting ANALYSIS TENNIS Cansulting, Inc. CLUB, Executive Summary .1 Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club Property .2 Introduction 2 Background 2 Location, Physiography, and Soils 2 Existing Development 5 Zoning 5 Natural Resource Overlay (NRO) 7 Surface Hydrology 7 \Vetlands 10 Vegetative Covertypes 12 Cottonwood Riverbottom forest 12 Non-mesic Shrub-Sagebi ush (xeric) 14 Non—mesicGrassland (xeric) 14 Landscaped-Gotf Course 14 Open Water/River Channel 14 Disturbed 15 Wildlife Species of Special Concern 15 Bald Eagle 15 Peregrine falcon 16 Trumpeter Swan 16 Snake River Cutthi’oatTrout 16 River Otte 16 Great Blue Heron 17 Raptors 17 Mule Deer 17 Moose 17 Elk 20 Neotropical Migratory 13irds 20 Amphibians 20 ‘Thieatenecland Endangered Species 22 Bald Eagle 22 Grizzly Bear 22 Gray Wolf 22 Canada Lynx 22 Whooping Crane 23 Ute ladies’ tresses 23 Development Impact Assessment 23 JIIGTC Environmental Analysis I I3RCI,RO. Box 85?S, Jackson, WY S3002-S57S Description of Proposed Development and Impacts to Vegetation .3 Single Family Lots #1-37 23 Single family Lots #38-42 23 Single Family Lots #43-44 and Utility Lot #45 3 Exaction Parcel Lot #46 23 Retail Lot #47 (Snack Shop) 24 Cabin Lots #48-50 4 Affordable Housing Lot #51 24 Golf Course Lot #57 24 Road Lot #53 24 Impacts to Wildlife 24 Project Vicinity Impact Statement 27 Development Recommendations 28 Protected Natuial Resources 28 1)evelopment Suitability 28 Proposed Development 30 Single Family Lots #1-37 30 SinglcfamilyLots#3$-42 30 Single family Lots #43-44 and Utility Lot #45 30 Exaction Parcel Lot #46 30 Lot 1147(Snack Shop) 30 Cabin Lots #48-50 31 Affordable Housing Lot #51 31 Golf Course Lot #52 31 Road Lot #53 31 Suggested Mitigation/Enhancement 3 1 Elk Migration 31 Landscaping 32 Cottonwood Removal 32 Habitat Enhancement 32 Other General Land Use Recommendations 32 Literature Cited 33 Appendix I JHGTC Eiieinnineita] A[olysis ii BRCI. P.o. Bo. 8578.iacksoji, Wy S3002-S57S ______ FIGURES Figure 1. I.ocation and topography of the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club project area, Teton County, Wyoming .3 figure 2 . Aerial photography and existing development ui the vicinity of Jackson Flole Golf and Tennis Club project atea, Teton County, Wyoming 4 Figure 3. Lxisting development within the Jackson hole. Golf and Tennis Club Project area, Teton County, Wyoming 6 figure 4. Original and revised Natural Resource Overlay mapping on the Jackson I-lob Golf and Tennis club project area, Teton County, Wyoming $ Figure 5. Sttrface hydrological features and associated setbacks on the Jackson hole Golf mid Tennis Club ;)rOjeCt area, Teton County, Wyoming 9 figure 6. Approximate locations of wetlands and associated setbacks on the Jackson hole Golf and Tennis Club project area, Teton County, Wyoming 11 Figure 7. Vegetative covertypes within the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club protect area, Teton County, Wyoming 13 figure 8. Ivhiledeer movement corridors ill the vicinity of the Jackson Fiole Golf and Tennis Club project area, Teton County, Wyoming 18 figure 9. Crucial moose winter range on and in the vicinity of the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club project area, Teton County, Wyoming 19 Figure 10. Elk migration corridors on and in the vicinity of the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club project area, Teton County, Wyoming 2 1 Figure 11. Areas most suitable, less suitable, and unsuitable for development ( within the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club project area, Teton County, Wyoming 29 Table 1. Acreages of aquatic sites present on the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Ctub propelty, Teton County, Wyoming 10 Table 2. Ilabitat covertypes, acreages, percent occurrence, and relative rankings of covertypes found on the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club property, Teton County, Wyoming 12 JIIOIC Erwronniennil Analysis I3RCI P.O.lx 8578.Jnckson, WY 83OO2S5?8 ( tXECUTIV%SUMMARY A revision of the 1997 Enviwnmentat Analysis (BA) of the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club (JHGTC) property in Teton County, Wyoming was conducted in 2002. This hA revision confirms and updates environmental information collected on the JHGTC parcel between 1995 and 1998. It also broadens the scope and scale of the environmental analysis and assessment of potential impacts of proposed development and infrastructure modifications to comply With recently adopted changes to Teton County BA regulations. The focus of the LA is on the possible adverse effects of proposed development on sensitive resources and wildlife “species of special concern” (SSCs), including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. The parcel provides habitat to bald eagles, peregrine falcons, mule deer, moose, elk, great blue herons, river otters, and several raptor species. The property lies partially within the Teton County Natural Resource Overlay (NRO) and the presence of crucial moose winter—veailu;grange on the tract is the principal factor for its inclusion in the NRO. Moose are primary useis of southern ripatian portions of the property during winter and rely on riparian vegetation found here for both food and cover. The parcel also represents non-crucial elk and mule deei habitat used during non—wintermonths, as well as an elk migration corridor. Recently collected information on autumn elk migration on and in the vicinity of the project area is included and discussed. Future development occurring on the property may have negative impacts on some of these wildlife species and their habitats. The clegice to which these species will be affected is directly linked to the location of future development, the extent of ensuing vegetative impacts, and ultimately, how human behaviors affect wildlife distribution and use. Sensitivity to wildlife and their requirements while planning future development will help minimize detrimental effects. The least valuable vegetative covertypes to SSCs on the property and, therefore, those most suitable for development are the non—mesicshrub—sagebrush(xeric) and non—mesicgrassland (xeric) covertypes, and existing landscaped and disturbed areas associated with the golf course Locating development within these covertypes will cause, in relative terms, the least impacts to these species In contrast, the ;nesic deciduous forest-cottonwood and wetland covertypes, mmdl open water, especially those located south of [he Spring Gulch Road, represent the most important wildlife habitats on the parcel. The overstory, shrub, and herbaceous stratums occurring within these covertypes provide excellent foraging opportunities and cover habitat for ungulates as vell as other species. l)evelopment within these more important covertypes will result in more potential negative impacts to SSCs. Opportunities exist to reduce potential negative impacts to SSCs and their habitat if development occurs outside of or along the edges of these covertypes and incorporates replacement plantings at a density greater than losses. Recommendations at-cprovided which, to the maximum extent practicable, v,ill reduce potential impacts while still allowing future additional development to occur on the tract. Employing some habitat mitigation and monitoring measures following development will go far to protect continued wikll ife use of this parcel and its vicinity. Impacts resulting from increased human uses can be minimized through self—imposedspatial and temporal limitations of human activities when SSCs are mast likely pleseilt. Minimizing human-caused disturbances to wintering wildlife, not inhibiting animal movements by electing impassable fences, controlling pets, and not intentionally feeding wildlife are appropriate measures when building on or adjacent to important wildlife habitat. 1)epcnding on plant materials used, future landscaping efforts may intentionally or unintentionally increase the attractiveness of developed areas to moose and deer Having these ‘wildanimals in frequent proximity to humans, although not ideal, will likely be difficult or impossible to I)revent. iIIGTC EnvironmentalAnalysis I BRCI, P.O Box8578. Jackson, WY 83002-8578 DEVEWPMENT R[COMMENDAT!ON$ The JIIGTC property provides potential habitat to a variety of wildlife species. A portion of the property fails within the delineated NRO of the Jackson—TetonCounty Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations (1994). The NRO represents a combination of important wildlife habitats including crucial winter range and migration eondo s for elk, moose, mule deer and bighorn sheep; nesting areas for bald eagles anti peregrine falcons; and spawning areas for Snake River fine—spattedcutthroat trout. The ii IG’l’Cpropeity contains crucial habitat for moose and this drives the NRO designation on the parcel. Poraging opportunities for bald eagles, peregrine falcons, other raptots, great blue IJIOnS, river otters, mule deer, and elk are oi may he present on the property, as well as habitat fot the Itne—spottedcutthtoat trout. A portion of the project area also represents an elk iidgration corridor, PzoTIcTED NATURAl.fl CSOURC1S 1jtciLRivers — The Gros Ventre River, as a protected river, has been given a prescribed setback of 150 feet from the watetside top of ch flood control levee by Teton County within which development is not allowed. The setback associated with the Gros Ventre River is dcpictcd on Figure 5, Wetlands — All jurisdictional wetlands arc given a 30 foot setback buffer by Teton County within which development is prob iNter!.A wetland delineation performed by B;ota located and mapped areas on the JI—IGTCproperty that met definitional criteria for wetlands. A subsequent jurisdictional determination made by the Corps allows jurisdictional wetlands anti Elwir associated setbacks to be depicted in figure 6. Wildlife — Although development in cover[ypns that are valuable to wildlife is not explicitly prohibtied by the incksonl’eton County Comprehensive Plan (1994), the intent of the plan is that parcel—specificdevelopment be located in areas that minimize adverse impacts to SSCs and their habitats. Ideally, development should be confined to the least valuable cevertypes found on any given tract. In general, the most valuable covoitypes occurring in developable areas on the JHGTC property are the cottonwood and willow covertypcs, especially those located south of the Spring Gulch Road and along the Gros Ventre River. Building in these covet ypes shotaid he avoided if at all possible and, if not, impacts to them should be minimized to the maxinmin extent practicable and/or mitigated. The least valuable habitats are non—mesicshrub-sagebrush (xeric) and non—mesicgrassland (xeric) coveitypes, landscaped areas and disturbed areas and development should be focused into these areas. iiLflMjgiigjmiCorridcw — The Jackson-Teion County Comprehensive Plan prohibits development in crucial elk Inigtalion routes, “unless the developer can demonstrate that the development can be located in such a way that it will not detrimentally affect the ability of elk to migrate from their summer ranges to their crnriai vinter langes” (Teton County 1994). A crucial elk migration rotate.is defined as trte that is used by elk during 8 out of tO migration seasons. The elk migration study performed by Wachob and Smith (2002. pers. comm.) took place over the course of 3 yeats (during the fall migration only) and since the JFIGTC project area was used 3 out of 3 years, it may meet the definitional criteria as a “crucial elk migration route’’ sometime in the future. Continued use of the Iwoiect area by migrating elk can be acconiplislied in conjunction with proposed development if minor adjustments to the development proposal me made and careful planning, mitigation, and monitoring are implemented DEVELOPMENTSUITAI3ILITY Results of this EA are brought together in a set of recommendations regarding where dlcvelopment might he sited on the parcel while minimizing real and j)otential inipacts to JIiQTC E ircmmrnit,tAI,sis 2% ORCI. I’.O. Bo 857R.]ckson, WY WDO285?5 I __\ Fiurc 1 L Arc most suit3hl, less suit.b1c, nd unsuitable for dcvelopmcrn within the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club rjecl area, Teton County, t’U( &d: I i.th 62Sfr.i LEGEND 9 Propcrty Boundaly — —. Spring Gulch Road Most Suitable for tin hd Development Less Suitable for - Development I.- - Wysirsog Csç POflot5792II Z1gtndwny js,Ln,n. Wyom,n t31512-1i57t Plssv:507-Th3-42L6 Fax: lO?-33-12.5 29 JHGTC En rur.mvntal .kn::, sensitive wild]iie species and their habitats. These recommendations identify areas which, based { on information gathered during the study, are believed to be “unsuitable” for development, ‘‘less uitabIe” for development, and “most suitable” for development, Figure 11 depicts unsuitable, less suitable and most suitable. Such designations are marie as follows: ,jtaNe”jDcvcloojji.tpi — All areas thai include protected natural resources and their respective protective setbacks as identified in the Jackson—TetonCounty Compmclwnsive Plan are consdcred “unsuitable” or development. Areas “Less Suitable” for DeveIommn — All covertypes and habitat components impoutaut to sensitive wildlife species hut which are not explicitly protected by the Jackson—TctonCounty Comprehensive Plan ate considered “less suitable” for development. It is the intent of ilie Jackson—Teton County Cmnpreheusivc Plan to mittimize adverse development impacts to important habitat features of sensitive wildlife species. “Less stumble’’areas do not encompass protected natural resource or their setbacks but, relative to remaining areas on the subject property, are important to sensitive wildlife species. Areas “Most Suitable’’for Deveiooment ANareas within which, relative to other areas on the subject property, development would cause the least adverse impact to habitats of sensitive wildlife species or other protected natural resources, are considered “most suitable” cot development. PRoPoSED DEVELOPMENT single Family Lots #137 Proposed development in this area is consistent with Teton County Land Use Regulations so long as development rices not intrude into setbacks associated with surface hydrological features ( as planned. Single Family Lots #3-42 Pmoposeddevelopment in this area is consistent with Teton County Land Use Regulations. At-ens consi tiered less suitable fomdevelopment mc]ucle the mesic deciduous cottonwood-mature covertype and efforts should be made to reduce impacts to cottonwood trees. Areas deemed unsuitable for development include the areas associated with wetland and surface hydrological setbacks and proposed development will not impact these resources or their setbacks. Single Family Lots # 43.14 and Utility Lot #45 The majority of this proposed development area is considered less suitable for development due to the presence of u mature cottonwood coveitype. However, the presence of only a sinaI] amount of potential moose foraging habitat and limited evidence of moose tise makes proposed development within this area consistentwith Teton County Land Use Regulations Exaction Parcel Lot #46 Although the exaction parcel occurs partially within a recommended less suitable development area it is considered unsuitable for development due to its proximity to and its presence within the Gros Venue River riparian corridor and the Natut-at Resource Overlay. 1herefomc, no development is recommended for this area and it is further recommended that the area be mestoredto its original ecological state. Lot #47 (Snack Shop) The rut lent plaits call fot . xpunsmonof the Snactc Situp and thusdevelopment would enematehi upon upatman habitat and ateas considemed“less suitable” fomdevelopment but not within tilL NRO. This area also mpresents a migration route for elk traveling through JHG’I’Cto the Gros Venue Rivet mmpam1mtone It is tecomunended that the Snack Shop not be epanded, cuttent development and human uses do not appear to adversely affect elk migration and should he allowed to continue. It1GTC Enviromnenni)Analysts 30 BRCI. P.O Box 8578,Jackson, WY 83002-5578 ‘abhi Lots #45O Cabin lot #48 represents a migration route for elk traveling throughJHGYC to the Gros Ventre River riparian zone and is therefore COIISIdeUtCI“less stutable’ tar (levc1op]Thnt. Proposeti development in this area would be consistent with Teton County Land Use Regtilations so long as the developer can demonstrate that the development’can be located in such a way that ft will not detrimentally affect the ability of elk to migrate irom their summer ranges to their crucial winter ranges. Aclditionally,development in all cabin lots must be completed in such a way as to not tbstub coitonwoods along irrigation ditches, nmintain nod enhance woody vegetation, and adhere to all setbacks associated with hydrological fbatures. Affortiable iiousint LoL#51 Proposed development in this area considered most suitable for development is consistent with Teton County Land Use Regulations so long as it adheres to hydrological features setbacks and cottonwood trees are not disturbed. Golf Course Lot #52 Proposed development in this area is consistc’ntwith Teton County I..,andtlsc Regulations, unless indicated below under the subcategories of Maintenance/Employee Rousing Area, Clubhouse and i\ssoeiated Facilities Area, or County/Public Trail. Maintenance/Employee Ilousins Area Proposed development plans call for expansion of [tie existing maintenance area and development of a new employee housing area within riparian habitat considered “less suitable” for developinem. It is recommended that additional maintenance and employee needs be accommodated within the area encompasslug the maintenance facility, the golf course superintendent’s house, and the area in between. The current development proposal does not appear consistent with letnu County Land Use Regulations where it expands outside of the area described above and into the NRt), crucial moose winter range, and elk movement corridors. Clubhouse and Associated FacilitjArea Proposed redevelopment in this area is consistent with Teton County Land Use Regulations so long as development minimizes disturbances to cDttonwood trees. County/Public Trail Proposed development of a public use trail is consistent with Teton County Land Use Regulations so long as cottonwood frees are not impacted anti use is iestrictecl clueing winter months in crucial moose winter i’nnge(December IApril 30). Road Lot #53 Proposed development in this area is not within the NRO and is consistent with Teton Count Land Use Reguulations.Development shortld make every attempt to avoid disturbing cottonwoods along irrigation ditches, maintain and enhance woody vegetation, and adhere to all hydrological feature setbacks. SUGGESTED Mr1lGATION/NHAWCEMENT Elk Migration Although elk foraging habitat is believed marginal, the area surrounding the existing tennis courts where cabins anctan expanded parking lot ate proposed currently provides a the primary route for elk migrating through the project area. 3y creating a buffet’of trees and shrubs between the cabins and proposed (realigned) practice lange, elk can be expected to continue following the same route. Expansion of the parking lot on the south side of the practice range could, however, impede movement of elk once they reach [lie south end of the proposed practice mange.However, it appears that elk currently move across the existing parking lot. In order to encourage elk to move across the expanded parking lot during migm’alion,islands of trees and grass shou]d be left intact within the paved areas on the east side of the parkIng lot. in addition, [he parking lot JHGTC EnironmentI AnOysis 3m BRCI,P.O. tiox 8578,Jickset’, WY S3002S578 should he closed during the elk migrationseason (November-December). fences or bctms in this ( area shouldbe avoided in order to promote unimpeded elk movement. Once across Spring Gulch Road, elk appatently move through the heavily treed area on either side ni the Snack Shop. Therefore, abandoning pkms for additional development in the Snack Shop area is airappropriate mitigation measure iou elk migration. Another route that elk may continue to take is along the parallel Buckskin and White irrigation ditches between the proposed residential cabin areas. A “soft” palh has been proposed for the vegetated area along these ditches which tvill have little impact on ungulatos during the peak summer season. However, use of this path during the elk migration season should be restrictedto day.-useonly. Lighting along this path sho’aldnot be installed. Landscaping In general landscaping within the elk migration corridor should also take into considerationthe behavior of elk during migration by providing shortterm targets of protective cover. Landscaping associated with residential areas should be designed to reduce the attractiveness of these areas to ungulates, particularly moose, This equates to planting trees and shrubs not palatable orless palatable to moose. CotionwoociRemoval Removal of cottonwood trees, live and dead, should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable so that opportunities for cavity iresting birds are protected and provided within the ,roiect area. This is particularly true for the 2 residential lots and sewage treatment lot associated with King’s Highway corner. The proposed development will specifically identify building envelopes outside of which vegetation cannot he cleared. rfhis effort is applauded and should be enforced. — Habitat Enhancement ( Riparian habitat enhancements on the south side of Spring Gulch Road could prove very beneficial for moose since moose use in winter is concentrated in this area. In particular, establishing willows atid other riparian shrubs in appropriate areas would help conserve the integrity of this riparian zone and may help attract moose away from residential landscaped areas The Exaction Parcel, adjacent to the Gros Venue River, would also be an excellent place for ripanan habitat mitigation. This area has been severely disturbed and degraded and becauseof its presence adjacent to the G]os Ventre River would likely benefit wildlife significantly if i-estorecl. Flurnan use of this area is discouraged and use for trailhead or a developed area is not recommended. Other General Land iJse Recommendations - Appendix 1 provides a list of general land use recommendations appropriate for the JHGTC property. J[IGTCEiwironrnentatAntysis 32 BRCt, P.O. Box $578. J;ckson, WY3ttO2-55?8 GENERAL NOTES JACKSON HOLE GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB PUD DISTRICT FOR PLANNED TOTAL PROJECT ARIL4 $UIWARY To TAL AREA OF PROPERTY CENERALL Y REFERRED To AS 457.38 A CRES JACKSON HOLE GOLF AND 7ENNIS CLUB: AREAS W7THIN EXISflNC SUBDMSIONS THA T ARE OUTSIDE OF PUD 700.44 A CRES DISTRICT FOR PLANNED RESORT (INCLUDING SAGEBRUSH DRIVE EASEMENT): CROSS SITE AREA FOR PUD DISTRICT FOR PLANNED RESORT: 350.94 ACRES BASE SITE AREA OF PUD DISTRICT FOR PLANNED RESORT GROSS SITE AREA: 350 ± ACRES SPRING GULCH RD. R.O. W (EXISTiNG): — 9.27 ACRES SPRING GULCH RD. R. 0. W (TO BE DEDICA TED): — 2.98 ACRES AREA WITHIN BANKS OF GROS VENTRE RIVER: — 44.39 ACRES 294 ± ACRES BASE SITE AREA APPROVED LAND USE WITHIN JACKSON HOLF GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB PUD DISTRICT FOR PLANNED RFSORT Area (Acres) SINGLE—FAMIL Y RESIDENTiAL LOTS 41 Lots 42.32 ROAD LOT 1 Lot 6.78 AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOT 7 Lot (22 Units) 2.71 TOWVHOUSE CABIN LOTS 3 Lots (37 Cabins) 74.04 __ / — r) f , cc cr5 L Ji (r F-) (‘5 /2 ii // \ I t. Q) 0) 0) GENERAL NOTES SPECIFIC TO THIS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE DISTRIC1 JACKSON HOLE GOLF & TENNIS CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT FOR PLANNED RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DISTRIC7 NA TURAL RESOURCE OVERLA Y (EMPLOYEE HOUSING AREA) MINIMUM SETBACK REQ UIREMEN7S FROM LOT BOUNDARIES:: EMPLOYEE HOUSING SITE: Primary Structures: Front/Spring Gulch County Rd. ROW: 25’ Rear: 25’ Side: 10’ CLUBHOUSE SITE: Primary Structure: Front/Spring Gulch County Rd. ROW: 40’ Rear: 40’ Side: 30’ BOTH SITES: Parking Areas: 5’ All other structures: 10’ (Except Retaining Walls Less Than 4’ In Height) APPROVED LAND USE WiTHIN JACKSON HOLE GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB PUD DISTRICT FOR PLANNED RESORT Area (Acres) SINGLE—FAMIL Y RESIDEN TIAL LOiS 41 Lots 42.32 ROAD LOTS 2 Lots 9.86 AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOT 7 Lot (22 Units) 2.77 TOW7VHOUSE CABIN LOTS 3 Lots (37 Cabins) 74.04 ___ The Rockefeller Trust Company Carolyn Ortenburger, at ci 538P348—349 265P596 r - — — -EJ 4 C— 18 N I . 1 II 1_• Cross Country Track Now Opiil The Cross Country Track at Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis Club is now officially open for the Winter Season! As a courtesy, please keep your dogs on leash and clean up after them. If you have never used the track before, the easiest access is to park in the North end of the JHGTC parking lot and proceed straight to the track which begins in front of the driving range. JHGTC does not offer any ski equipment. The track covers 15 golf holes as Holes #9, #10, and #11 are closed during the Winter months for animal migration and habitation. Jeff Jensen and his golf course maintenance team will be grooming as the snow falls, or every four days without snow. Be sure to check his “Superintendent’s Blog” for updates on track conditions and grooming updates!: ii’ -- -• - O1I’>3W Concerns:Vail/JHG&Tapplication to amend the master plan Bob Fitton Sat 1/5/2019830 PM TaBoardOfCountyCommissionersccommissioners@tethncountvwvnan’; cc.frantboyettsbcgbbainet Dear Boardof CountyCommissioners: Weam writingto expressmy oppositionto VailResort’sapplicationto amendtheJacksonhole GolfandTennis (JHG&T)MasterPlan.Astheownersof a cabinat JHG&T,I encourageyouto reject their proposedchangesto the Master Planfor the followingreasons: The Cabinsat JHG&Tis a plannedcommunity,supportedby an existingMasterPlan that was approvedby the county.ft sets the highstandardsfor the community,includingunifieddesignelementsand wildlifeprotection.It was a materialconsiderationin attractingus to JHG&Tand has beenrelied upon by the surroundingcommunityin their decisionto be a part of this community. • The proposalby VailResortsto modifythe planto build 13RVpadsrepresentsa materialchangeto the Master Plan and wouldunnecessarilycompromisethehigh standardsthat attractedthe ownersto JIIG&Tand have beena hallmarkof the plannedcommunityfor the past severalyears. • VailResorts,on its web page, claims “OurProductis the GreatOutdoors”and goes on to say “Everythingwe do needsto be alignedwith our five stakeholders:Our Guests,Our Employees,Our Communities,Our Natural Environmentand Our Shareholders.”Yet,it seemsclear that the Communityis not alignedwithVailResortson their proposaland theproposedchangesare not in the best interestof the NaturalEnvironment. • While we stronglysupportthe need forVailto providehousingfor its seasonalemployees,theirproposalis based in their self interestto lowertheft costs, shiftingsomeof the cost to their employees,at the expenseof loweringthe design elementsand the wildlifeprotectionprovisionsthat havebeen in existencesince the MasterPlanwas approved. Wewouldencouragethe Boardto avoid rewardingVailResortswith a concessionthat is effectivelydesignedto serve theft financialinterests.Instead,VailResortsshouldupholdthe high standardsof the currentMasterPlanand require VailResortsto followit and constructactualhousingunitsin the areasdesignatedby the currentMasterPlan and not expecttheftseasonalemployeesto bring theirown housing units. Respeetfidly, Robert& MaryAliceFitton 5937 ConeflowerDrive (Cabin#28 / JIIG&T) Jackson,WY 83001 Jackson. Jackson 250 Sent Thank wildlife vegetation The cell corridor President Lowell area. natural patticcilar, 2). might I Amendment am Tc Sun LoweN I Natalia Board Teton County Commissioners Teton County Administration Building - 2nd Floor 200 South Willow Street Jackson, Wyoming 83001 ACHLIN RE: THECABINSATJHG&T—VAIL,RV’s P A R T N E R S Dear Board of County Commissioners: I am writing to express my opposition to Vail Resort’s application to amend the Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis (JHG&T) Master Plan. As the owner of a cabin at JHG&T,Iencourage you to reject their proposed changes to the Master Plan for the following reasons: • The Cabins at JHG&Tis a planned community, supported by an existing Master Plan that was approved by the county. It sets the high standards for the community, including unified design elements and wildlife protection. It was a material consideration in my attraction to JHG&Tand has been relied upon by the surrounding community in their decision to be a part of this community. • The proposal by Vail Resorts to modify the plan to build 13 RVpads represents a material change to the Master Plan and would unnecessarily compromise the high standards that attracted the owners to JHG&Tand have been a hallmark of the planned community for the past several years. • VailResorts, on its web page, claims “Our Product is the Great Outdoors” and goes on to say, “ Everything we do needs to be aligned with our five stakeholders: Our Guests, Our Employees, Our Communities, Our Natural Environment and Our Shareholders.’ Yet, it seems clear that the Community is not aligned with Vail Resorts on their proposal and the proposed changes are not in the best interest of the Natural Environment. • While Istrongly support the need for Vailto provide housing for its seasonal employees, their proposal is based in their self-interest to lower their costs, shifting some of the cost to their employees, at the expense of lowering the design elements and the wildlife protection provisions that have been in existence since the Master Plan was approved. Iwould encourage the Board to avoid rewarding Vail Resorts with a concession that is effectively designed to serve their financial interests. Instead, VailResorts should uphold the high standards of the current Master Plan and require Vail Resorts to follow it and construct actual housing units in the areas designated by the current Master Plan and not expect their seasonal employees to bring their own housing units. ectfully submitted, Rachlifi,AlA,LEEDAl 5845 Mountain Mahogany (Cabin No. 20 at JHG&T) Jackson, WY83001 8640 National Boulevard, culver city, cA 90232 310.204.3400 rachlinpartners.com SKRMAfees sagarling @rdeincbiz Mon 1/7/201910:40PM m [email protected] c [email protected] 1attachments (16KB) Newsand Guide12.docx; To the Jackson Town Council Members, We are owners of a Grand View Condo located within the Snow l If the town is mandating that SKRMAestablish reserves, would it be appropriate to create a special Improvement and Service District for SKRMA,that complies with the State of Wyoming regulations? We heard, but not yet confirmed, that SKRMAwas entertaining the idea of taxing only the rental properties and not ALLof the properties located within the area to generate revenues. Would the council provide the property owners information on the current and pending negotiations regarding revenue generation? When will the next meeting regarding the SKRMAnegotiations be held with Town Council? Could the homeowners call in to join the conversation? It appears that the SKRMArepresentatives have not been forthcoming to the owners they represent. I appreciate your time and attention and look forward to heating from you. Thank you, She tyl 551 Snow King Loop Road, Unit 5120 Sheryl and RogerGarling Rand D Enterprises, Inc. www.rdeInc.biz P0 Box3321 Casper, WY52602 Cell307.277.3861 Land 307.237.4188 gjjng@ rdeinc.biz ragading@rdei nc.hiz News and Guide 12/5/18 Additional oversight requested of SKRMA Town council sets fourth meeting for Snow King. By Cody Cottier The Town Council nearly fit into place the final puzzle pieces paving the way for future development at Snow King during its third meeting to consider the resort’s complex master plan. The council homed in on the Snow King Resort Master Association and phasing of development at the Town Hill — details that have kept them from a final decision. Representatives of SKRMA — the group of property owners in the resort district — clarified vague aspects of the master plan that frustrated councilors in last month’s round of meetings and agreed to impose a fee on lodging and ticket sales to fund a wide range of commitments outlined in the master plan. “This is somewhat of a crux issue,” Councilor Jim Stanford said. The exact nature of the fee remains uncertain. SKRMA proposed it be 0.5 to 1 percent to establish a reserve balance that would go toward things like snow removal, road maintenance, lighting and a variety of other responsibilities. A common critique of SKRMA is that it did not fulfillits obligations in the original master plan, created in 2000, in exchange for the massive development rights the town granted to it. The fee would provide the funding mechanism to guarantee the obligations don’t fall by the wayside this time around. Jeff Golightly, vice president of Gardner Capital Management, which owns Snow King Mountain, said the members of SKRMA — the mountain, the Snow King Hotel and the condominium associations — would each be responsible for many of the requirements individually. But the reserve fund would act as a safety net. “SKRMA’s sitting here as a backstop in case someone fails,” he said. Mayor Pete Muldoon suggested they increase the fee, perhaps to 2 percent, with part of it sustaining the ski area. “That seems to be kind of the sticking point for a lot of us,” he said. Stanford argued in favor of the wording from the original master plan, which simply included “recreation” in the list of the master association’s requirements. He objected to SKRMA representatives’ request that the reserve fund not be viewed as a funding source for the ski operations. See SNOW KING on 74A CONTINUED FROM SNOW KING ON PAGE A2 SNOW KING Continued from 2A Ryan Stanley, Snow King general manager, clarified that if Snow King struggled to operate the ski area, SKRMA could supplement it. The factor that will hypothetically ensure the master association holds up its end of the bargain is the phasing in of the developments. The town is working to establish a timeline for what Snow King must do for the community before it will be granted building permits for the things it wants to develop. Additional oversight For example — though the details are still being ironed out — they may have to complete improvements to Phil Baux Park, or install a gondola in the park, before they can build more condos or anything else. And ifthey fall out of compliance in any way, like by failing to run the ski lifts for a certain number of hours each week, they’ll be denied any more building permits until they and the town resolve the issue. Overall, the amendments give the town more authority and oversight in SKRMA’s affairs and are more detailed than the original master plan. The master association will have to provide an annual report showing the composition of the SKRMA board, how exactly it is in compliance with the master plan, and financial information to prove it is able to cover its requirements. Another of the town’s grievances was the ambiguity as to who is included in SKRMA, and therefore who would pay into the reserve fund. Not an opt-in requirement Golightly confirmed that some of the condo associations are not included because they were built before the creation of the resort district. He also said the previous owner of Snow King, Manuel Lopez, excluded the Town HillLofts property from SKRMA. “The land development regulations are a law,” Stanford said, “and you can’t get a note from somebody to say you’re exempt from it.” The role of those outliers remains an open question for town and SKRMA lawyers to sort out. The council willtry to finish reviewing the master plan at a fourth meeting at 2:30 p.m. Dec. 20 in the Town Council chambers. Though the council is nearing a decision, it will be far from the final say. After the council approves Snow King’s amendments to the master plan, SKRMA will review them, and either sign off or make a counteroffer. The possibility remains that they won’t come to an agreement at all. Ifthey do, that agreement will become an ordinance, and the town will review it in three readings before it becomes official. Contact Cody Cottierat 732-5971, town(ãjhnewsandquide. corn or @JHNGt0 wn. Teton County BOCC - Verizon Wireless Letter re Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis Club PUDApplication Reagtn, Melissa K. Mon 1/7/2019 11:02PM Board 01 Cour ty Commissioners ii: unt (73 KB) 2019.01.07- VZWLettei to Teton County BOCC(49390092vI),PDF; Dear Board of County Commissioners- Please see the attached letter on behalf of Verizon Wireless in support of Jackson Hole Golf and Tennis Club PUD Application for Amendment to Resort Plan and Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan. Irene Cook will be in attendance at the hearing and available to answer any questions on behalf of Vetizon Wireless. Thank you, Melissa Melissa Kerin Reagan - Member 633 Seveirteenth Street. Suito 3000, Denver, Colorado 80202 Direct: Main : Fax: 303.298.0940 303.290i310 303.297.2900 I I www.shermanhoward.com rnrgnshermanhoward.com I CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Ihis electronic mail transmission and any attachments contain information belonjing to the sender which may be confidential and leqally privilcoad. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient an disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the irrformation contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. ii you have received this transmission in error, please immodiately inform me by “reply” email and delete the message. Thank you. SHERMAN-HOWARD 633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202-3622 Telephone: 303297.2900 Fax: 303.298.0940 www.shermanhoward.com Melissa Kerin Reagan Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 303.299.8310 E-mail: mreaganshermanhoward.com January 7, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Teton County Board of County Commissioners 200 S Willow Street Jackson, WY $3001 Re: Jackson Hole Golt’& Tennis Club - PUD Application for Amendment to Resort Plan and Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan Dear County Commissioners: We represent Verizon Wireless. We write in connection with the Teton County Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) hearing scheduled for January 8, 2018, to consider Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis Club’s PUD Application for Amendment to Resort Plan (“Application”), which includes an amendment to revise the Use Program / Dimensional Limitation Plan Table to include cellular wireless services to the list of uses and identify dimensional limitations (“Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan”). Vcrizon Wireless writes in support of the Application and amendment to the Dimensional Limitation Plan. Verizon Wireless respectfully requests the BOCC approve the Application and the proposed Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Application and Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan Shotild Be Approved under the Federal Telecommunications Act. Verizon Wireless seeks to construct a wireless facility within the Master Resort Plan in order to reduce overloaded data capacity on Verizon Wireless’ networks and remedy gaps in its coverage and capacity network around Teton County. The facility is required because Verizon Wireless is required by federal law to remedy these coverage and capacity gaps. In order to do so, Active!49390085. I Teton County Board of County Commissioners January 7,2019 Page 2 it respectfully requests the BOCC the Application and Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan to allow for wireless services as an allowed use in the Master Report Plan. “While Congress expressly preserved local zoning acithority over the construction of personal wireless facilities ... Congress adopted the Federat Telecommunications Act in order to tromote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage tile rapid deployment of new telecolllmurncations technologies.” Z’—Mohi/eCentrctl, LLC v. Uni/lc’c/ Governuient of Wyandotte Cotmty, Kansas City, Kan., 546 F.3d 1299, 1306 (10th Cir. 200$). Because these facilities are required, Congt’ess has restricted the power of state and local governments to deny applications for sites like this one wider tile Federal Teleconlrnunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332. Tile Federal Telecommunications Act preempts ally “regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities by any State or local government thereof . . . [that would] prohibit or have tile effect of prohibiting tile provision of personal wireless services.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). It prevents local governments from regulating “personal wireless service facilities in such a way as to prohibit remote users from reaching such facilities.” Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Wittoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2nd Cir. 1999). All effective prohibition of service exists when “the denial of a permit prevented [the applicant] from closing a ‘significant gap’ in existing services.” AT&TMobility Services, LLC v Village of Corrales, 642 Fed. Appx. $86, $89 (10th Cir. 2016). Where, as here, data traffic creates capacity impacts and ultimately overloads existitlg sites, coverage gaps arise. Verizon Wireless must add new facilities in between existing sites to off-load soiie traffic and ensure adeciuate coverage throughout its network. Based on the eirewnstances, the failure to allow wireless services and deployment of facilities will lead to a gap in coverage/capacity, which Verizon Wireless is required under federal law to remedy, 5cc’,e.g., 47 U.S.C. §332; T-MohiIe Northeast, LLC v. Village of East Hills, et a!, 779 F. Supp. 2d 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). Verizon Wireless will present propagation maps at tile hearing that Silow tile proposed facility will cure a significant gap in coverage and capacity. 2. The Demand and Growth of Wireless Services Supports the Approval of the Application and Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan Tn 2016, U.S. mobile data was 35x the volume used in 2010. 90% ofU.S. households use wireless service. The average U.S. Ilousehold ilas 13 connected devices. In addition, the number of wireless only (110 land lines) houseilolds has increased to 52%. The significance of providing adequate wireless and data service (i.e., coverage and capacity) is important coilsideritig tile increased reliance on mobile devices for access to emergency services. 76% of all 9-1-I calls are made from cell phones. Many emergency personnel and first responders rely upon wireless networks tlot only for secure encrypted wireless communications, but also for use of mobile equiptllellt which has become fairly commonplace in emergency vehicles and for tile trallsmission of data services. Verizon Wireless provides wireless services to tile Teton Cotitity Sherriff and the Town of Jackson Police. Active/49390085, I Teton County l3oard of County Commissioners January 7, 2019 Page 3 Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Verizon Wireless respectfully requests the 80CC to grant the Application and Amendment to Dimensional Limitation Plan. federal law requires, and the County’s own code, supports such a result, which will enable improved access to and quality or wireless telecommunications services in the area. This is important to not only the County and its residents, but also to the emergency service providers and to those visitors traveling through. Verizon Wireless looks forward to working with Teton County and the 80CC to provide wireless services to its citizens, emergency service providers and visitors. Irene Cooke will be in attendance at the 30CC hearing on behalf of Verizon Wireless and will be available to answer any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Melissa Kerin Reagan MKR’tg Active/49390085. I Bebout carries Friess private-school billto end local control Richard Bloom Tue 1/8/2019 1:54PM TiBOard 01 County Commissioners cE KeithGingery 1 attachments (520 KB) wyofile.com-Bebout carries Friess private-school billto end local control.pdf; Dear Joint Electeds, Today WyoFile - Angus Thuermer Jr. published another updated story on the Friess private-school billto end local control. See belov•iand attached. Respectfully - RichBloom PS Note - to clarifyat the end of the story - it was established during the County review that the 1994 limit on building size in the rural j applied equally to residential as well as institutional buildings since then. Bebout carries Friessprivate-schoolbillto end localcontrol JACKSON— At the behest of the Foster Friess family,a powerful state senator willcarry a billto override local control of a private school development. Castweek the Teton County commissioners refused to change land-use rules to accommodate the Friessfamily’sproposed Jackson Hole Classical Academy campus in a rural zone south of jackson. Sen. EliBebout (R-Riverton), immediate past... The web link below linksto the article - and includes the first comments coming in from around the state: jps://www.wyofile.com/bebout-carries-friess-private-school-bilI-to-end-local-control/? fbclidlwAR3aAmiMG1WFpHdswr451HA5fiaJY8OCtDpWZSLxcglbZLnl- 8gO5RWM Bebout carries Friess private-school bill to end local control 1 wyofie.com/bebout-carries-friess-t January 82079 by Angus M. Thuermer Jr. 2 Comments January 8, 2079 ‘ . — . 4. ‘ ‘r, , V •‘.‘ . -. I 3 (, , I - U ) JACKSON — At the behest of the Foster Friess family, a powerful state senator will carry a bill to override local control of a private school development. Last week the Teton County commissioners refused to change land-use rules to accommodate the Friess family’s proposed Jackson Hole Classical Academy campus in a rural zone south of Jackson. Sen. EliBebout (R-Riverton),immediate past president of the Senate, is a principal sponsor of Senate File 49 that would prohibit counties from controlling the location, use or occupancy of private schools provided they’re to be situated on at least 35 acres and enroll at least 50 students. Friess and members of his family launched and help fund the Jackson Hole Classical Academy in Jackson, a school with about 100 students that seeks to expand. Teton County commissioners on Thursday voted 4-1 to reject a request by a Friess-connected limited liability company to change zoning rules to allow the Jackson Hole Classical Academy to erect a larger structure than is currently allowed in an area zoned for rural preservation and development. Bebout filed his billthe week before the county’s decision. 1/7 Based on conversations with the Friess family, Bebout said he sees Teton County’s position on the proposed 245-student institution as “an overreach.” He characterized the request for 116,000 square feet of buildings — including two buildings that would exceed the rural zone’s 10,000 square-foot limit — as innocuous. “It’slarge home-schooling ... just an escalation of home-schooling,” he told WyoFilein an interview. Friess aide Bailey Shelbourne has said the philanthropist, Republican mega-donor and unsuccessful GOP gubernatorial candidate had a “platform and influence” that would increase chances of passing legislation that would allow the classical academy to be developed. Ranch arid ii South Park, site of the proposed Jackon Hose cIasscaI Academy, is largely zoned rural where the size of buildings is restricted. (Angus M. Thuemier Jr./WyoFile) The Friess Family and JH Classical Academy are listed as sponsors of Gov. Mark Gordon’s inaugural ceremonies. Bebout, Sen. H.F. “Hank”Coe (R-Cody),former Teton County Rep. Clarene Law and Steve and Polly Friess have invited legislators and select others to a legislative dinner Thursday at the Grand Ballroom of Cheyenne’s Little America. Following Thursday’s decision by Teton County commissioners not to amend county regulations, academy spokeswoman Kristin Walker said the group’s leadership “is reviewing all their options to move forward.” School leaders “are dedicated to solving their facility crisis for the families that depend on them,” she wrote in an email. Government schools advantaged? 2/7 Five senators and six representatives, all Republicans, co-sponsor “County zoning authority- private schools.” No Democrats nor any legislators representing Teton County have signed on. Co-sponsors are Sens. Wyatt Agar (R-Thermopolis), Brian Boner (R-Douglas), “Hank” Coe (R Cody), Ogden Driskill(R-DevilsTower) and Cheri Steinmetz (R-Lingle)and Reps. Aaron Clausen (R-Douglas), Mike Greear (R-Worland),Tim Hallinan (R-Gillette),Tyler Lindholm (R-Sundance), David Miller(R-Riverton)and Tim Salazar (R-Dubois). Foster Friess aide Shelbourne wrote in an email that he seeks legislation “allowing private schools to enjoy the less restrictive zoning of government schools.” Public schools are considered exempt from most county zoning regulations, according to a 1981 Wyoming Attorney General’s opinion. But they must comply with some zoning elements such as building codes, Teton County’s chief deputy civilattorney Keith Gingery told WyoFile in summarizing the opinion. The doctrine of sovereign immunity and theory of preemption have guided legal decisions regarding public school authority, according to the opinion. The attorney general wrote that public school districts “are political subdivisions.” As such, they are subject to voters’ will in the election of school board members. As political subdivisions they also fall under rules governing public meetings and records along with regulations regarding taxation. A political subdivision may accrue certain authority that may preempt regulations of other political subdivisions. “Anygovernment entity has some independence,” Gingery, a former Teton County representative and current school board trustee, said. The 1989 opinion cites several cases in other states. “Public schools [are] state property held in trust by local school officials,” the 1981 opinion reads. “School districts which are political subdivisions...fix the location of public schools.” For such political subdivisions, the argument proposes that school placement “is permitted without compliance with zoning laws,” Gingery said. There is general agreement, however, that such facilities do have to comply with building codes, requiring things like sprinklers, along with various other construction standards, he said. In Teton County, “we would like them [political subdivisions] to comply with local rules, Gingery said. To set an example, county development proposals themselves “go through the process,” he said. One former Teton County commissioner, Sandy Shuptrine, suggested the public and electoral elements were critical to public schools’ preferential siting authority. “Just because we label it [a] school does not mean it’s the same situation,” she told sitting commissioners of the difference between private and public entities. 3/7 _____ The Jackson Hole Classical Academy is a private nonprofit. Its operators Steve and Polly Friess, the son and daughter-in-law of Foster and Lynn Friess, have created the limited liability company Owl Happenings to complete elements of campus development, including the purchase of land. Owl Happenings has an option to purchase land in the rural zone south of Jackson from the Box L Ranch, according to a memorandum filed with the Teton County clerk. The memorandum refers to an agreement between the parties but lists no purchase price. School representatives have said they are seeking to acquire $0 acres in the South Park area of Jackson Hole for the school site. Foster Fress (Andrew Grahom/WyoHie) Overreach claims Bebout told WyoFilethe Teton County school issue came to his attention through its supporters. They “presented the facts,” which amounted to “a little overreach,” on the part of the county, he said. The bill would be “a way to simplify the whole process,” he said, “for all the reasons that are good reasons — for the kids.” Other than Senator-elect Mike Gierau (D-Jackson), Bebout said he had not talked to Teton County residents who are critics of placing the large facility in a rural zone. “I’mleaving that up to the people who are promoting it at this time,” he said. Bebout said he’s “tryingto be fair to all,”and find “some way to allow the school to move forward.” School critics say the Jackson Hole Classical Academy should build on land that’s zoned to allow its proposed development. In Thursday’s county commission meeting, Chairman Mark Newcomb said such property exists. “There are choices,” he told audience members while displaying a zoning map showing property that would allow the proposed development without changing land-use rules across the county. “They may be limited,” Newcomb said of the options, “but they exist.” Pointing to parcels that could accommodate the academy he said some of them have been listed for sale. “Youneed a willing seller,” he said. “That does exist out there.” 4/7 Development on those lands “would be by-right,”meaning the rural-zone county rules limiting building size would not apply to projects such as the proposed school plan. In contrast, county zoning imposes “a very high level of natural resource protection on rural lands,” he said. Bebout outlined his understanding of the issue, “Iwas under the assumption ... whatever they tried to do they received roadblocks,” he said of school backers. “I’m trusting their judgement. What we want to provide those kids [is]the best school they can have.” As for building at an alternative site the senator quipped “Yeah,they could move the school to Sublette County. They wouldn’t have the problem.” Sen. EliBebout. (Wyoming Legislature) Bebout, Friess consulted after primary One of the state GOP platform planks says “the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government that is closest to the People.” “I’ma very strong proponent of that,” Bebout said. “Idon’t liketo get involved in your Teton County politics.” Nevertheless, “Wesee a lot of times ... there’s disagreement and the Legislature has to get involved.” Bebout said he talked to Foster Friess after the Teton County resident lost in the Republican Primary. The Associated Press and Wyoming Tribune Eagle reported that Bebout convinced Friess not to run a write-in campaign in the general election that could have split the GOPvote and provided an opportunity for Democratic candidate Mary Throne. The school issue, Bebout said, emerged on his radar only recently. “Ibelieve it’s been at the most two months,” he said. The Jackson Hole Classical Academy seeks a larger facility, operators say, because its lease is running out, it wants to educate more children, and wants to provide 11th and 12th grade instruction that it currently can’t offer. County debate 5/7 Academy spokeswoman Walker, said in her statement that county commissioners on Thursday failed to address a “clear inconsistency” in their regulations. Namely, educational institutions are conditionally allowed in the rural zone but buildings are limited to 10,000 square feet — too small school backers say for the needed gym. Commissioners and others disputed that interpretation. Limits were imposed to maintain rural character, they said, and would allow a variety of educatiohal institutions, such as riding schools and so on. Outgoing commissioner Smokey Rhea said commissioners crafted the rules deliberately and after endless hours of public input and negotiations. “Itstill hurts from time to time when I think about all those meetings,” she said. Commission Chairman Newcomb sought to keep discussion at Thursday’s meeting on the rural zone regulations, not the benefits or shortcomings of the school plan. He was unsuccessful. Become a supporting member today with a tax deductible donation Lynn Friess spoke to commissioners Thursday and urged them to change zoning rules for the school. Part of her argument was that the 10,000-square-foot limit in rural zones — which Teton County defended successfully all the way to the Wyoming Supreme Court — was intended for residences only. “Is it appropriate to equate a 10,000 square-foot home, built for possibly two people, with a safe gym for children in this community?” she asked commissioners. “Areyou thinking about the future of the education in this valley factoring in the importance of a gym? “Gymclasses and sports — they are essential to education,” Friess continued. “They are a part of education and if in doubt talk to Alabama or Wisconsin that sports really aren’t important and ask ifthey need a teensy-weensy gym.” She also addressed wildlife, since worries about elk and other animals were part of the rural zone discussion. “There are lots of elk and animals moving around through John Dodge [a subdivision] through golf courses, across [Highway]22 and the toad to Teton Village, all populated areas,” she said. “Animals are everywhere,” Friess said. “I’vegot resident moose where I live and we have pretty much learned to adapt to one another.” Academy spokeswoman Walker’s statement touted the proposed school development. “Weas a community need more education options on the table, not fewer, and yesterday’s decision has far reaching implications for Teton County students, parents and families, her statement said. 6/7 For school critics, the implications of changing rules would extend to all county residents and to the millions of visitors who enjoy Jackson Hole scenery, wildlife and open rural character. “This proposal,” Geoff Gottlieb told commissioners, “is only going to benefit the family that owns the school.” Some neighbors said the proposed school development would diminish their property values. Development of the school would be “to the detriment of homeowners,” Donna Hornbuckle told commissioners. 7/7 Vail’s our representing way door It community, very and neighborhood campground, appropriate covenants. or not 24-48 To the County Valley provided a their “The Thank-you Master 2002 application Spruce Good was any emphasize opposition existing one locally are class least. of concept efforts representative morning Plan almost hr destinations. other the Dr Plan in neighborhood managed period. at general 5 - Their at Golf for as By to star the bordering neighborhoods.” JHGT or summary to recreational the Headwaters Gros 2 of specified. amend “existing - any taking to — accepted provide years and you expense the resort My HOA recognized There’s any by - that Ventre standard, Master Tennis would name This — Vail. ago change the my associations — Mr would HOA Spring that employee neighborhoods” it And means of a vehicle Vail comments diversity 2002 Alex campground, campground, states: is need reason the Plan Club. is in Kelly use campers End if of allow uniquely proposed Gulch, the Klein character I Master of the Amendment to could is to A quote. housing housing community Smith for and in build however, committee a 2002 be regarding and — camper, KOAs these and several site parked Plan. homeowners different Colter a etc. — a and across of Master trailer I trailers guest as in pg. would across Teton commonly all is I I outlined any 2002 trailer, times support or live 17 for Bay of Vail of not from house from park Plan even residents part which more County say are the at to is Resorts to met 250 to RV, the be in and other there in A not country, Teton Vail at express adopted than create by of our the front boat, the with F and an to the the in is a investment. the translated - recognize of homeowners, I has Spring So yard Master is enforcement be bicycles campground. Screening parking couple camping. maybe that of help Mr dormitory, — sincerely maybe Vail, the “one I totally standards Fodor very have would they find Master Gulch after cars, 6 Plan?? with lot and limited trailers a alternatives screened that now at is our believe question comply for duplex, barbeque so the not the other that procedures Plan and already Even the sentiment 15% have 6 much planning an benefit community,” trailers as thousands would will this would paraphernalia with by option some the etc.. screened - - deliberation according Why for set grills, 75% of approach maintenance/equipment/dumpster - the is the not to available that employee forth. sort not commission — hardly are - corporate, there Master satellite of people it’s enhance solve at and flies of we people Or to this been compromise is that a with is make the even maybe in for beyond their solution. housing, Plan is no point?? the dishes, the almost this come meeting for 2002 traverse so the way considering the needs- - face they scenic them Mr. tiny violation arrogant community with Master proper to probably other Are 2 Not of — Klein could totally houses, suggested decades but daily. to to most byway trailer there to comply provide than this just Plan of mention a on be screen plan a the not another the any — of change and has trailers, few was quote with 2002 that to a part not it a to a This is a company that had in excess of 2 billion in revenue last year and has spent 30 million on legitimate employee housing in other parts of the country — places they own like Park City, Whistler-Blackcomb, Vail, & Breckinridge to name a few, and a company that profits from being the concessionaire in our local national parks. Yet they tell Mr Klein we will only allow you a few hundred thousand to put in a parking lot for employee owned trailers, rather than constructing housing units as already specified! This is difficult to believe. They should unequivocally comply with the agreement, by providing - again - housing in character with Teton county” as stated in the 2002 Master Plan. for a company headquartered in Colorado to dictate to us (repeat J - what they will and won’t do in our backyard is not right and would establish a bad precedent if we were to allow this billion dollar company to change the rules to the cheapest level possible — a rave1 lot that allows employee owned trailer parking..kcai4éi1-?— I and hundreds in our community adamantly oppose any consideration to Vail, to amend the 2002 Master Plan. Thomas Thank of of whereas and employee 4. Please 6. 5. maintenance 2. and 3. employees. My Dear I From: To: Date: 1. Subject: write Teton Vail Wildlife, Vail The RV’s 13 Providing reasons its they Teton RV’s to you, Corporation Corporation Master adjacent require as County’s G. RV encourage would housing a and including Barker, County for tgbarkaol.com RV Proposed substitute pads 1/8/20 facility. Plan Vail their requesting have waterway. pads employees, offer could was can Corporation Jr. Commissioners, is 19 numerous deer, you to The for designed for afford 12:47:35 no required provide Vail to be employees corporation elk, permanent help that Their reject rented to Corporation the foxes, inhabitants. you beneath to to their comply to habitat, the AM environment, comply protect to provide decline is own ducks, application employees employee has discriminatory, Mountain with snow. movement vehicles the with failed to berms marmots, county RV land amend the and housing to by during Park as employee and in Standard construct Vail our and standards which a the in coyotes, the visual greatest Corporation the that use Development in Master wildlife no to winter the of only housing Time and live. way for the owls, first resource, Plan people sound providing corridors months helps area to berm. eagles, requirements for construct would barriers the with this to our from employee County’s and help project: RV’s wildlife. be exactly for 13 songbirds curtailed mitigate would of RV its the affordable housing former concrete this be current the or use type able eliminated development housing in the housing pads permanent master of be / proposed development. “housed” ) for crisis with plan crisis. seasonal of structures. in the for RV as the the Permanent the commotion employees, Park ‘1 county, benefit area