Loading Glossary… SiteAdmin Jan 20 2025 at 2:42PM on page 44
Comment
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Blue Print Summit County review. The document is well presented and does a nice job in most areas. However, the plan ignores entirely the rich mining history of Summit County and specifically a property like ours, the Country Boy Mine. For 30 or more years the Country Boy Mine has been providing a cultural, recreational, and tourist oriented center within Summit County on the property of a formerly operating mine. As the new owners, we have been trying to enhance these activities. Many of these activities have been recognized by the Michelin Guide as an outstanding community resource. Country Boy Mine was also designated as “having special historical significance to Summit County” by Resolution No. 94-3. The previous comprehensive plan had an entire element of the plan dedicated to promoting and preserving important cultural and historic resources.
The problem is that your land use plans and this new Blue Print plan don’t have a category for a use such as the Country Boy Mine and no statements anywhere in the plan about recognizing these historic and recreational type uses. The Country Boy Mine property is designated “Ranchette” which promotes only “Single-household, ranches, or agricultural uses with densities of one DU per 5-40 acres” (we are not sure why an “or” is used instead of an “and” which might suggest to someone that only one of such uses is appropriate versus all three).
We believe there should be some greater definition of the types of uses allowed in this category so that it would allow a use such as the Country Boy Mine rather than painting the FLUM with such a wide brush across thousands of acres. The Country Boy Mine property is a unique historical, cultural, and recreational facility that should be accommodated versus being essentially prohibited by the FLUM Map. We understand the FLUM is not “regulatory” but it will be referenced and used by staff and the Planning Commissions when making findings and recommendations thus having essentially the same effect as a regulatory designation.
Please consider adding to the language of Ranchette something to the effect of: Single-household, ranches, agricultural, and other cultural and recreational uses with densities of one DU per 5-40 acres.
Many of the other categories have a more extensive list of potential uses and it would be perhaps more appropriate to list additional uses in the Ranchette Category. We are also not opposed to a unique category that would be used for the Country Boy Mine property and other properties in a similar situation.
Additionally, we are a little confused about the proposed density of “one DU per 5-40 acres.” We realize you are promoting a range of density in this category but we are confused about how that will be interpreted by staff or the Planning Commission on a specific parcel when an application is submitted. How is it decided which properties are considered at one DU for 5 acres and which ones are considered for one DU for 40 acres? Maybe language that describes where each are most appropriate could be added to reduce the guess work by land owners and staff members.
A better idea would be to change the definition of Community Facilities by expanding the definition beyond nonprofit, public or quasi-public use. Why is it important to have a land use category that references ownership versus simply the land use? Most of the uses listed in this category could be privately owned and still be considered a community facility. Take a hospital for instance, there are many privately owned hospitals that we all would consider a community facility. The same might also be true for a private school. This definition should remove the type of ownership and be expanded to include recreational and cultural facilities. The Country Boy Mine could then be designated Community Facilities which seems appropriate to the type of use and its location and surrounding land uses. In should be noted that the only proposed FLUM designation that includes the word “recreation” is the Open Space designation which seems very limiting in a community largely focused on recreation.
- Kaelen Johnson and Mike Shipley
The problem is that your land use plans and this new Blue Print plan don’t have a category for a use such as the Country Boy Mine and no statements anywhere in the plan about recognizing these historic and recreational type uses. The Country Boy Mine property is designated “Ranchette” which promotes only “Single-household, ranches, or agricultural uses with densities of one DU per 5-40 acres” (we are not sure why an “or” is used instead of an “and” which might suggest to someone that only one of such uses is appropriate versus all three).
We believe there should be some greater definition of the types of uses allowed in this category so that it would allow a use such as the Country Boy Mine rather than painting the FLUM with such a wide brush across thousands of acres. The Country Boy Mine property is a unique historical, cultural, and recreational facility that should be accommodated versus being essentially prohibited by the FLUM Map. We understand the FLUM is not “regulatory” but it will be referenced and used by staff and the Planning Commissions when making findings and recommendations thus having essentially the same effect as a regulatory designation.
Please consider adding to the language of Ranchette something to the effect of: Single-household, ranches, agricultural, and other cultural and recreational uses with densities of one DU per 5-40 acres.
Many of the other categories have a more extensive list of potential uses and it would be perhaps more appropriate to list additional uses in the Ranchette Category. We are also not opposed to a unique category that would be used for the Country Boy Mine property and other properties in a similar situation.
Additionally, we are a little confused about the proposed density of “one DU per 5-40 acres.” We realize you are promoting a range of density in this category but we are confused about how that will be interpreted by staff or the Planning Commission on a specific parcel when an application is submitted. How is it decided which properties are considered at one DU for 5 acres and which ones are considered for one DU for 40 acres? Maybe language that describes where each are most appropriate could be added to reduce the guess work by land owners and staff members.
A better idea would be to change the definition of Community Facilities by expanding the definition beyond nonprofit, public or quasi-public use. Why is it important to have a land use category that references ownership versus simply the land use? Most of the uses listed in this category could be privately owned and still be considered a community facility. Take a hospital for instance, there are many privately owned hospitals that we all would consider a community facility. The same might also be true for a private school. This definition should remove the type of ownership and be expanded to include recreational and cultural facilities. The Country Boy Mine could then be designated Community Facilities which seems appropriate to the type of use and its location and surrounding land uses. In should be noted that the only proposed FLUM designation that includes the word “recreation” is the Open Space designation which seems very limiting in a community largely focused on recreation.
- Kaelen Johnson and Mike Shipley
Comments
Close