HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Responsee,
?
PUBLIC RESPONSE
ITEM DATE SUBMITTED BY
t *o 6xornwv-
S.
qlnlow J B"aF. Leau'jd,
[\Dtr\OX\$'(
Ch.S +iryu
\l-6'otq
Pr.b (fuwtu+tL-1- ok
Pr4 lWUi LL-1-ot{Eta'eu'vL
\q-(ld'd'0 -0rp ch^4 Wir4_
& l, td.or l- ro-01 i+1
PP-1 Atr\ft.t,L 2- \- or John *
a-n\
P- X ?.a1rus\ -\o tY{"I\u\-4 ts- or tidrtltSC,Urr<
€^/lt ,A
florrn-rr \,r1wrta"
Dffi,tr
I
64/lB/2807 I1:58, a4/14/2BA't L 37 ":ff:.'t"
w
LAND PRO
EJILDING DEFART ,,o PAGE. ZT/A2
PAGE S1l82
-(p i
-Billr (
'01t ..1 ntc*, I
EIvd.el,l
83605IDCaldwell
4533050
Planning & Zoning
trePartment
Fdc
Phf,le!
Rs;
Thrrksl
Hcr
CC:
-cfl
EI Ugmt U ror Rertcrv u PIEIg co'ltlEot tr Flor=e topllr n Fh6r€ Rec,de
reh"rrn tD mo,
wL
.aG
.c".rffi.'rrs U$6Sfu eW 4
A4/1A12667 rriSA'\ a4,rt8/e6e7 1E; 17
for Case No.
2488952714.ouolu LAND PRO
zuILNING EPART o PAGE A2/A2
PAGI Z2/A2
Request to Examine Files
on &pil \{ .200 l, I visitea the Caldwell
Piauning & Zoning D and examined the case file
-\55'ov tt6-ttUOP-oiz I
requested copies ofthe fo owing documents taken from ttre
file: 1rd'+
I understaf,d that this request to examine flles will be made
a part of the permanent file regarding this case.
PrintName S
I (I
Planning & Zoning Staff
ffilrr4 d"r,t-
o
City of Caldwell
621 Cleveland Blvd.
Caldwell, lD 83605
(208) 45t3021 .fax (208) 45$3050
Planning & Zoning
Department
To:["
r"* 454 - cq-lq
Flom:VC\irfi,r- a
Pages: L
Phon€:Irate;'L-\' 01
Re:GC
E Urgent EI For Review D Ptease Comrrnt E Please Reply E Pleasc Recycle
. commonts: {irr.Sa.
S.-,ra- ?^rttr r
i"1tThanks.
t-Y- ((i1^rrrucrrt j (-(c,(.1-c'(11rc,,
,_;wbcuvrsiov., \ )UrnS. fr+ /\ CtPl
n'CCrr1S.
fl"'b
qh'
I
I nrt,aRit(.\
A
O
lanuNy 29,2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council members
I would like to express several concems regarding the Sierra Ridge Subdivision
currently proposed for the property off of Farmway Road and Ustick. My concems are
relatively the same as has been expressed for the Aspen Falls subdivision across the
street.
I live in the Orchard Heights subdivision which has lots of I acre and up with
higher end homes that have been established for many years. The average resale value of
our homes in the current Boise Market would be significantly higher than home prices
proposed for either Sierra Ridge or Aspen Falls. Sierra fudge will have approximately 4
homes per acre which is not consistent with the size of lots surrounding the subdivision.
The majority of lots in the area are one acre and greater with much of the land being used
for livestock and farms.
The number of homes that would be condensed in the area offof Farmway and
Ustick is approximately 950. The density of homes and the proposed costs does not
match with the homes in the area and I feel that the number of homes per acre should be
dropped. Homes in the Caldwell area seem to pop up everywhere without consideration
to what services are available. Sierra Ridge is far from local schools, grocery stores are
several miles away and roads in the area are not able to handle the number ofcars that
will travel down them. Homes in the area will have to blend in with a predominately
agricultural area, how many of the neighbors will complain when the aroma of stockyard
permeates their homes during the summer.
The traffic in the area will be significantly impacted by the road traffic down
Ustick Road and Farmway Road from Sierra fudge as well as Aspen Falls. The majority
of traffic will travel east on Ustick crossing Farmway to reach work, schools or shopping
or heading North or Farmway to reach the freeway. The number of cars traveling down
these roads will be significant. It was suggested by Landmark Engineering and the city
that a traffic light be placed on the corner of Homedale Road and Tenth, however the
more logical place will be Ustick and Farmway to meet the traffic flows from Sierra
Ridge ifthere is a plan to address the traffic issues that will develop from growth in the
atea.
The development of Siena ridge is not in the best interest ofthe neighborhood nor
of Caldwell. The quality of life in Caldwell needs to be nurtured and developed such as to
enhance the community feel. Quality homes should be a consideration with more high
end homes available. There is already a large number of starter homes in the Caldwell
area and we should focus on a balance ofhome values to ensure Caldwell's future
success. Decisions regarding homes built now will last for many years and the needs of
the current homeor",ners should also be taken into consideration. It was suggested during
a recent city council meeting that new subdivisions should meld with the current homes
not make the homeowners adapt to the new homes. Continuing to place homes in
agricultural areas is not in anyone's best interest and should be re-evaluated prior to
o
I
approving the Siena Ridge subdivision.
Thank you for your time.
John and Patty Soran
522 Keogh lane
Caldwell, Idaho
o
t o
To:ib, earL
'* ,[54 - cq1 q
From:
City of Caldwell
621 Gleveland Blvd.
Caldwell, lD 83605
(208) 455-3021 .fax (208) 45$3050
Planning & Zoning
Department
V,
Phonel Date:
cc
tr Urgent BI For Relriew E Please Comtnent E Please R€pty E Ploas€ Recyclo
'co--",,o, {15 Uffirr I,JAS sLb:fufu-d h
(onurrurg
Thanks.
**
Pages: I
Rel
Ster.r. W SGb
A \
Page I of2
Anne Marie. Skinner
From: Chris Hopper [chopper@mseng.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December20,2006 1'l:47 AM
To: borten@ci.caldwell.id.us;AnneMarie.Skinner
Subject: Draft Development Agreement. Sierra Ridge Subdivision
We have reviewed the draft development agreement for Sierra Ridge Subdivision (ANN-135-06 & SUB 160P'06)
We offer the following comments and suggestions for clariflcation of the document. As this is a legal, binding
document which runs with the land in perpetuity, we feel it is imperative that the terms of the agreement be set
forth as clearly as possible, so that future interpretations can be made with the greatest certainty.
Article ll
Section 2.1
Dear Ann Marie and Brent
\j- lnclude the date of the submittal of the development application, July 13, 2006.
L- Caldwell had not established a design review process as of the date of submittal of the
development application. This item should be deleted.
I t O. fn" a"uelopment should be required to adhere to the street section requirements in place at the
timeof the development application, orJuly 13,2006. This is already stated in item'1, andcouldbe
eliminated.
Lf{- ln accordance with our discussions at a meeting November 21, 2006 on this agreement, item 11a
should be revised to indicate "the applicant shall make improvements to Farmway Road and Ustick
-Road ionsistent with the implementation of eastbound and westbound left turn lanes 14 feet in
'width." As we discussed pr6viously, the development does not include property ad.iacent to Ustick
Road east of Farmway, and as such has no control of right-of-way which may be necessary to
construct the improvements indicated in the existing language.
L2A.---fease clarify the code section referenced in this item. Section 10-07-05 is numbered (1 - 10),
' and the reference to part F is confusing.
1 ------L{ fhis item is in conflict with item 1 and item 10. At a minimum, it is suggested that this item be
amended to read '....laws and requirements of State and City Code and any and all City
Ordinances in place at the time ofthe development application, July 13, 2006 "
ffine Findings of Fact include the staff report submitted to the Planning & zoning Commission,
Certain terms of the staff report have been negotiated and revised during meetings with staff, or
during the P&Z hearing, and may be further revised at Council's direction following the hearing.
As such, the statement that the strictest condition shall apply to conflicts may not represent the
true terms negotiated during preparation of this agreement. We suggest that the language of this
item be amended to read' .,. isfi
elr€+epply. ln the event there is a discrepancy or conflict, terms specifically addressed in Section
2.1 of this agreement shall take precedence over other references. lf no reference in section 2.1
of this agreement is made, the more slringent requirement shall apply.' We would suggest that
this language be reviewed by the City Attorney. As currently written, our interpretation of this item
is that the inclusion of the Findings of Fact (which includes the staff report) could overrule any
revisions to the staff report which have subsequently been negotiated, and that this could lead to
mis-interpretation of the agreement in the future.
1212012006 F\-5
aa
PI'BLIC MEETING COMMENT STIEET
(Please print clearlY)
Name:'
Street Address:3iq -Rn--r.,L*
City I St*e l7trP:(.I ),.,o1I E
Av,rt - t?$-d.
Name of Case Being Heard:-Si tA- /-ob
Check the appropriate box(es):
Applicant tr
Applicant's Representative
In favor:
Neutral:
Wish to speak E
Do not wish to sPeak E
Opposed:
Wish to speak E
Do not wish to'sPeak E
F
Wish to speakfl
Do not wish to speak E
written comments may be attached to this form, or you may write them in below:
RV
\
I
o
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT SHEET
(Please print clearly)
C+ttr> t+DPPcfL
Street Address: )l
City lState l7)P:
D(o
Check the appropriate box(es):
In favor:
Wish to speak E
Do not wish to speak E
Opposed:
Wish to speak E
Do not wish to speak E
Written comments may be attached to this form, or you may write them in below:
!!-'b
a
Name:
1,*rAr-*w-lo
ftt/,/a- Wq/,
Name of Case Being Heard:
Applicant E
Applicant's Representative
Neutral:
Wish to speak E
Do not wish to speak E"/
I
I
O N\N
-\ Nf,si.N
.\ \\5\ \-
$N
N\
N
.)
{.
$
tl
$
\p
(
$$
$
trt
t
\
N
$'
N
$
Oa
Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission
Dear Sir:
We wish to express our oonc€rns for the proposed Sierra Ridge Subdivision. Being
owners ofthe parcels of land 7,6,3,and 13, we are affected in many areas.
Water delivery to maintain our property originates at water box 278 (Wilder Irrigation
District). From box esst under Charlie Lane is concrete ditcl! then north to headgate is
concrete ditch where it goes into pipeline leading to waterbox at the corner ofour
property. It is necessary that this water delivery is maintained.
At a previous presentation, Rita Earl stated the area would be fenced, which we failed to
see on the plan. There needs to be specification of type and mainlenance.
Considering the locatioq we feel it's too high density and would appreciate yanr
evaluation of increasing the lot sizes.
Sincerely, f, _l -W 2J. '12"'424";2 zzela
Norman and Virginia Higer
3702 Farmway Road
Caldwell, Idaho 83607
P?;
.rr.1 !ry: ,E.rVfiT & ASSoCIATES ENGINEEFS; 208463S040;sep-21:f s:4sa[1;F.rg: i./-o
Request to Examine Fitres
Ou 2006, I visited the Caklwell
[+uumrnity Devetopment Depafiment and oxarnined the
case fi.le tor Case No.5 -ota oP-o\e.
I rcquested
the filE:
copies of the foll docume&tr take,n frorn
Nlo*rofrw,lxtr'* a{' bfuhf
I understand that this requost to examine filee will be made
a part of tte permanent file regardiag this case.
Print Name
C Developmcnt Staff
l it ,,I A F?d {ti'Edl}fir90-E I l-E}tl-}/c aqsegsleoz Llt7Z t66?" taz t6A
PQ,J
J:BesE @,n--