HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Agencyr -l:..I a
PTIBLIC AGENCY
SUBMITTED BYDATEITEM
b*a-r*L"'>L-q-a(n!-{t bPfr- t
L- l'6bQk.z {lLuuP D"..?fBnr -n
fo
CALDWELL FIRE DEPARTMENT
C]TY OF CALDWEII
310 South 7th Avenue
CALDWELL,IDAHO 83605
(208) 45S3O32
Protwttng Yow Proprty Sauing Lilrcs
TO
DATE:June 1,2000
Linda James, Community Development Director
Douglas Brown, Fire Marshat ?fr{.'
SUBJECT:comments for caldwellP&z commission (June 8th Hearing)
The Caldwell Fire Department (CFD) offers the following comments regarding cases to come
before the Caldwell Planning and Zoning Commission on June 8, 2000:
Case No. ANN-34-00 / Westpark & Briggs Engineering
36.82 Acre annexation / vicinity of ustick and Middleton Rds.
The CFD wants the developers of this proposed annexation to be aware of the need to extend
municipal water service *d u..es. to these parcels for fire protection purposes- This must occur
before development (combustible construction on-site) may occur.
Case No. SUP-86-00 / Tamarack Properties' Inc., Applicant
Six four-plex dwelling units / N. Michigan Avenue
The CFD has reviewed the plot plan for this project and will require the following:
A. Access is inadequate as shown. The interior roadway must be increased to 20' in width and the
turnaround at the end must be a 50' radius bulb or other approved turnaround configuration (i'e'
a hammerhead). The roadway and bulb will be considered fire lanes and appropriate signage
and red curbing indicating No Parking will be required'
B. At least one on-site fire hydrant will be required at approximately the location of the driveway
to the on-site parking. An additional fire hydrant may be required o'ry' Michigan, depending
on the location of any existing hydrants nearby. The minimum required fire flow is 1,000 GPM'
C. A common address will be assigned to the complex with sub-addresses (unit numbers) assigned
to each living unit.
D. One 2A:10BC fire extinguisher, stored in an approved cabinet, shall be provided for each
duplex.
FROM:
QAL
,
at
Case No. ANN-33-00 / Crestline and Heartland Development Cos.
10 Acre Annexation / vicinity of Highway 20126 and KCID Road.
The CFD wants the developers of this proposed annexation to be aware of the need to extend
municipal water service to these parcels for fire protection purposes. This must occur before
development (combustible construction) may occur.
Case No. Al[N-32-00 and SUB-50P-00 / Crestline and Heartland Development Cos.
Colonial Heights Subdivision / Vicinity of Highway 20126 and KCID Road.
The CFD wants the developers of this proposed subdivision to be aware of the need to extend
municipal water service and associated fire hydrants for fire protection purposes. This must occur
before development (combustible construction) may occur. The minimum required fire flow for
SFR dwellings is 1,000 GPM. Fire hydrant locations will be determined by the CFD in cooperation
with the project's civil engineer.
Access within this development will be limited since it will be built in three phases. Therefore, each
phase will be considered solely on its own ingress and egress capabilities. Prior to combustible
materials being brought onto site the all-weather access roadways must be installed and functional.
For dead-end roadways over 150 feet long, an approved tumaround is required.
At the development of Phase 2, a secondary access roadway will be required connecting to
Highway 20126. As a condition of development of Phase 3, the CFD would insist on the permanent
extension of the roadway (shown on the plans as "Amherst Ave.") to connect with Highway 20/26
through Lot 29. The common area detention would need to be modified to accommodate this
requirement. This access is necessary based on the uncertainties of development and possible future
phases to the east.
The street names which were submitted (Amherst Ave., Auburn Dr., Chesapeake Ave., Colonial
Drive, Dorchester Ave., Montpelier Dr. and Roanoke Dr.) are being reviewed for acceptance by the
CFD. If any of these names are already assigned to streets in Canyon County, or if any sound
similar to existing streets in Canyon County, the developer will be asked to submit different names
for consideration.
Street name signs are required to be installed prior to the start of combustible'construction. Street
addresses will be assigned once a final plat map is recorded. Temporary addresses must be posted
on buildings under construction and permanent addresses installed prior to occupancy.
)o
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
flkLinda James
Gordon Law, City Engineer
Re Case No. ANN-34-00, Annexation/Re-zoning
Westpark Sparks Parcels
June 9, 2000
The Engineering Department provides the following comments on the annexation/re-zoning of the
above referenced project:
1. The "out parcel" should be included in the annexation
2. Re-zoning - The Engineering Department recommends denial of the request for amendment
of the Comprehensive Plan land Use Map to re-zone from Agricultural/lndustrial to an R-3
and C-2 designation for the following reasons.
a. According to the 1997 Caldwell lndustrialAirport Master Plan (a plan approved by the City,
County, ind Federalnviation Administration (FAA)), land use and zoning for this area is
limited- to Agricultural and light industrial, both of which have been determined to be
compatible with airport activity. The re-zoning to an R-3 or C-2violates the Airport Master
Plan and could weaken existing protection of the airport, the flying public, and future
residents by allowing incompatibie development and potential hazards closer to the critical
phases of aircraft approach and departure operations.
b. Attached to this memo is a letter from the FAA outlining the negative effects of allowing
incompatible re-zoning and development to occur too close to an airport. As stated on
page 3 of this letter, tlie FAA 'expects the City of Caldwell, to the extent of its authority as
boifr permitting/zoning jurisdiction over the proposed development and as sponsor of
Caldwell lnduitriatnirport, to protect the airport from incompatible encroachment as well
as to safeguard persons and property near the airport". As a recipient of Federal airport
improvement assistance grants, the City, as airport sponsor, has provided written
Assurances to the United States that it would "prevent the establishment or creation of
future airport hazards" and will take appropriate action "to restrict the use of land adjacent
to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with
normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft".
c. lt is also stated in this letter that lncompatible re-zoning of land adjacent to the airport
would jeopardize FederalAviation Administration participation in future airport projects.
3. The FAA has informed the City of Caldwellthat the future l-84/Ustick interchange should be
located to the south of the current Ustick overpass. This also entails relocating Ustick Road to
the south on the east side of l-84 with a portion of the re-routed road crossing the applicant's
property.
Po -lPage 1 of 2
o
The fundamental issue is that a portion of this project lies within the formal approach and glide
path at the end of runway 30, which will contain low flying aircraft and noise, both of which are
incompatible with the applicant's request for re-zoning.
o
Page 2 of 2
/fr 7{-t/ t
@
o o
U.S Deportment
of Tronsporloton
Federol Aviotion
Administrotion
a
a
S6alllc Airporls Districl Oflice
1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.
Renton, WA 98055-4056
rlilu
December 28,1.999
Mr. Jack Pearson
Airport Manager
Caldwell Industrial Airport
P.O. Box 1177
Caldwell,ID 83606
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Proposed Residential Rezoning
Caldwell lndustrial Airport
This letter is in regard to a proposed rezoning of land irimediately west of the Caldwell
Industrial Airport from its current agricultural and open space use to permit residential
development. The following points, amplified later in this letter, should be clear at the outset:
The City of Caldwell should acquire the remainder of land identilied for future runway
protection zone (RPZ) on the Caldwell Industrial Airport approved airport layout plan
(ALP), and keep it clear of structures.
Incompatible re-zoning of land adjacent to the airport or permitting dwelopment in the
Iand to be acquired would jeopardize Federal Aviation Administration GAA)
participation in the proposed runway extension.
As you know, the number one priority of the FAA is safety. Another high priority is protecting
the public invesfinent in airports through compatible land use planning and zoning. At present,
both safety and land use compatibility are well-served in the airport environs by the existing
open space and the curent zoning as contained in the Caldwell Comprehensive Plan. FAA has
long supported the Caldwell Industrial Airport as an important aviation facility. W'e fund much
of the planning and development at airports, including airport noise control and land use
compatibility programs, as well as the construction ofpublic use airport facilities. This airport
seryes a significant role in the Idaho and national systems of airports-senring as a designated
reliever of general aviation (GA) activity for Boise Air Terminal-while at the sa'ne time
providing a transportation gateway and economic asset to the City of Caldwell, Carryon County
and surrounding communities.
ffi3
ii
o o
2
With regard to airports and their environs, the FAA Seattle Airports Dishict Office (ADO)
strongly encourages airport sponsors and other local governments with airports located in their
jurisdictions to take steps toward compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses.
This is usually accomplished through z-oning, based on comprehe,nsive land use planning, which
recognizes the characteristics of airports, aircraft activity, and the'actual and potential effects of
such activity on sensitive adjacent uses, particularly residences, schools and other neighborhood
components. We note from the 1997 Caldwell Indushial Aimort Master Plan that both the City
and the County already have in place, in their respective Comprehe,nsive Plans and ordinances,
compatible land use 2sning for the airport environs.
It is our understanding that the proposed residential rezoning area includes properties within and
just beyond the ultimate west @unway 12 approach) rurlway protection zone (RPZ), which is
recommended for acquisition onthe @(ALP). That drawing shows
proposed relocation of existing residential development in the RPZ and larger approach area for
the west end of the runway. Aircraft approaching Runway 12 (i.e.,landing to the southeast)
could be expected to fly over houses in this area at low altitudes in accordance with standard
operating procedures and in significant numbers. In some cases, these aircraft may be operating
lower than 100 feet above houses closest to the runway end. The proposed residential area would
also be subjected to considerable "single-event" noise impacts from aircraft overflight. These D*rt-
types of noise impacts are particularly annoying atnighttime, when residelrts are tying to sleep. 1
Significant noise can also be expected from aircraft taking offon Runway 30 (i.e., departing to
the northeast), right over much of the area proposed for residential development rezoning.
In addition, there would also be visual (perceptual) impacts from aircraft operating into and out
of the airport. While these types of operations represent qafe and tpical procedures over the
presently largely vacant lan{ it would be disconcerting to many people on the ground in this area
of the proposed residential development due to aperceived hazard of low-flying aircraft. That
is one of the main reasons that such land uses are stongly discotraged under airport traffic
pattem areasi. Although the frequency of aircraft accidents is comparatively very low, the
numbers of aircraft using the concenffated airspace of airport approach areas, together with the
complexities of takeoffand landing operations, does mean that accide,nts are proportionately Acc
higher in those areas than in other locations farther away from airports. This can be illustrated by
the fact that two accidents occurred in the last few years on approach to landing at Oregon's
Portland-Hillsboro Airport-like Caldwell Industrial Airport, also a designated reliever facility.
For these reasons, tJrre 1997 Caldwell Industrial Aimort Master Plan contained extensive
information and recommendations on the subject of airport land use compatibility and zoning. It
made specific recommendations on these matters, including the following excerpt, from chapter
6,page9:
"...it is important that Caldwell pursue careful land use and noise related zoning so that
future concems can be addressed relative to the Caldwell Industial Airport. It is
impgrtant to as-much-as-possible restrict noise sensitive developments near the airport in
those areas which can be most affected by noise and also to restrict residential and
V;sua{
dds
'!
o
3
community congregation qpe of developments along the flightpaths for either of the
runway approaches or departures from the Caldwell Indusfrial Airport. Such land use
restrictions will simp_br provide a gfealer_margin-ofsafety-focindiuiduals on the ground in
the viciuity-of the QaldweXjndustrialAirport."
We could not possibly state it better than your own adopted master plan. Enclosed for your
information are pertinent pages from that report. Also enclosed is a map from the Caldwell
Comprehensive Plan, incorporatingthe 1997 master plan's recommendations, and showing the
proposedrunway exte,nsion and fufure RPZ, noting that it "is considered ahazardarea and
should be under the conhol of the airport".
In accordance with the master plan's recommendations, including the approved ALP, the
approach land in question is eligible for Federal assistance under the Airport rmFrovement
Program (AP). At a minimum, the Airport should acquire tnfee that portion of the RPZ on the
affield side of Interstate 84. The rest of the subject area may also be considered for acquisition.
If not acquired, then an avigation easement, stipulating compatible zses (especially all areas
underlying the Year 2015 DNL 65* contours, as shown on the Land Use and Noise Plan), should
be secured, especially for properties imrnediately beyond the"future RPZ. Our position is this: if
the City, in disregard of its own Comprehensive Plan and approved ALP, permits further
developmentto.occur in the area needed for RPZ and approach protection for the planned
ultimate mnway length, FAA will not participate in the recommended runway extension.
We would construe a decision by the City to depart from these approved plans 4s pganing that ]Caldwell has decided that it will never need the improved air transportation capabilities (and j
economic benefits) attendant to a longer rulway.
We expect the City of Caldwell, to the extent of its authority as bothpermitting/zoning
jurisdiction over the proposed development and as sponsor of Caldwell Industrial Airport,-.lg
protect the airport from incompatible encroachment as well as to safeguardpersorEandprgp5ff
, near the airport. As a reqipient of Federal ru$ort improve sistance-grants-l.bg.eily, as
ar{pgrt spprur,h.45-p_rpvided ruritten-Assruanceslo-thglllited Stqles. Among these are the
following:
[The sponsor] will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is
required to protect instnrment and visual operations to the airport (including established
minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by removing,
lowering, relocating marking, or lighting or othe,mrise mitigating existing airport hazards
orpteventigg_the*esta-bli-shment_gr-ctealiorr-o_f-future-airppfrnez4rds._ (Assurance no. 20)
[The sponsor] will take appropriate action,the of laws, to the
extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or ln of the
airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including
landing and takeoffof aircraft. (Assurance no. 2l)
O
t
I O a
'If the City were to approve the proposed rezoning, it would weaken existrng protection of the
airport, the flying public and the futwe residents by allowing
@ to the critical phases of aircraft approach and departure operations.,
Further, it would be conhary to grant Assurance no.2l. Such a land use action could violate
Assurance no. 20. The City, ils sponsor of the airport and the jurisdiction with zoning/permitting
authority in the airport e,nvirons, is obligated by these and the othei Assurances contained in the
grant applications it has submified to FAA which and
o
4
F
to receive fufure
Caldwell has always honored its airport grant assurance obligations,
intends to remain in good compliance standing.
City of
and we are confident that it
To avoid creating land use conflicts in the vicinity of the airport by preventing incompatible
development would demonshate a serious commitment on the part of the City of Caldwell, and
this can be shown by denying the proposed reside,ntial rezoning. V/e believe that the land in
question, beyond that which needs to be acquired for the runway extension and future RPZ, can
be developed in a manrier that is consistent with the Airport Master Plan, and compatible with
the neighboring airport. If I can be of further assistance, please call me at @25) 227-2658.
Originalsigned By
Supervisor, Idaho/Idaho Section
Enclosures
cc:
The Honorable Richard H. Winder, Mayor, City of Caldwell
Gordon Law, City of Caldwell
Bart Welsh, Idatro State Aeronautics
Wayne Pickerill, Idaho State Aeronautics
Sincerely,:"' .
i