Draft Future Land Use Map

please designate historic structures on this map

why did we go to all the effort to preserve the WS Ranch if we were just going to increase density next door? What's the thinking here?

It seems unwise to increase density in the narrow canyon.

I strongly oppose the proposed increase in density in Warmsprings.

I attended the meeting the other night and had the opportunity to speak with Director of Planning, Morgan Landers. I appreciate her difficult position but disagree with many of her observations which are not based on data, but her own subjective opinions and interpretations.
She told me that the goal in changing any zoning should match/mirror/align with what is already in that particular area. I then referenced the Schernthanner property and asked how any HD development would mirror what is in the vicinity. She stated the intent would simply be to mirror the existing 3-story units in Four Seasons and The Fields. I submitted that there are no 3-story buildings in Four Seasons or the Fields. She was unaware. There are in fact no 3-structure areas in the area.

When another guest asked her WHY the HD zoning was such a priority, her response: The City has been hearing from workforce tenants in Ketchum, that often times no one is living in units around them bc the owners aren’t in Ketchum full-time, so they lack a real sense of community. This is not factual nor a reason to push for zoning changes. Additionally, this merely demonstrates that if more condos are built, they will be purchased in large part by out-of-towners - - too expensive for the workforce.

I am completely opposed to high density zoning update in Warm Springs. Please keep the low density development in place. The changes and impact are already felt with the new development in the Warm Springs area where the old tennis courts use to be. As a long time home owner I urge you to reject the high density zoning idea. Thank you.

I moved here in 1985-lived all over valley-last 25 years West Ketchum. IT is my favorite and a very special part of this community- SO much of this town that I knew is gone- this TRUE neighborhood of long time locals again Special- Please keep it Low Density- I live at 171 Bordeaux St-( 20 yrs) - home owner tax payer

This location is exactly where density should be located. Close to town, close to city services....

Avalanche zones anyone? This puts property owners and city service workers at risk for no reason. Really terrible risk mitigation management.

Will new riparian protections be enacted due to the proposed density increase along Warm Springs? Right now the riparian code only applies to Low Density Residential Dwelling zoning.

Will the bike path be eliminated to support new traffic load based on the high and medium density expansion proposed out Warm Springs?

How will new the new infrastructure needed to accommodate the sprawl along Warm Springs be funded and built?

I categorically oppose the increase in density to my neighborhood, and to every neighborhood along Warm Springs Road to the four way stop. We are residents, and we deserve to have the city protect our quality of life. Increased density means increased property taxes, increased congestion, and the erosion of our communities.

We should not be pawns in the mayor and council's ridiculous land grab for developers. You should be representing us, not them.

I agree with all of the comments about making the Warm Springs area high density. This is going to drive out wildlife and change the character of the area completely. There are so many negatives to this suggestion that I really question the entire reasoning of the entire re zoning process. There are a multitude of other area that can be developed as high density but it seems that no one listens to those of us who attend meetings or post comments. Again… why are we not looking at areas south of town on the bus route (I’ve been told it’s in the county and too expensive. “More expensive that the Washington lot with same amount of units.” I really don’t think so. But regardless, forcing high density zones in areas in our town that would destroy the natural environment forever and the character of our downtown areas forever is worth hiring a better real estate negotiator and perhaps listen to the residents of our community. We care about the environment and wildlife. We care about local businesses who need parking for customers to visit them and we care about our town not looking like other mountain towns; lots jammed with structures without open space and parking. We understand we live in a unique place and there are different ways to keep it this way. The approach that is being taken is both not unique nor focused on the full time residents and future residents of our community. I believe there are better options but it seems to me that the council has already decided that there are not and is asking for input from the community but not listening.

During the meeting I suggested that the community be provided a list of tenants in the bluebird project. I think it would provide transparency and give residents more confidence in the project. The fellow said we would be given a list as it’s now full. I asked how and when. He said he thought it’d be on the website in about a month. This seems like it could be done quickly. The facts would be good. Unit size - number of tenants under 16 and over- where they work or are they retired- lease or month to month- household income. When and how will we be able to see this list?

the slider bar comparison map is seems really helpful but since the definitions of the low, medium and high density zoning changes between 2014 and 2024 it is not an equal comparison. Might need a second map to show what is proposed to remain the same in 2024 as 2014 and what is proposed to become denser.

We wish to express our strong concerns regarding the proposed re-designation of a currently low-density area to high-density zoning.
This change will significantly impact both the community and the environment in ways that have not been fully considered.
The current low-density designation has allowed our community to maintain a peaceful and tight-knit atmosphere. High-density development could disrupt this sense of community by introducing overcrowding, increased noise, and a loss of green spaces that are integral to the quality of life here.
Our current infrastructure—roads, utilities, and emergency services—is not designed to accommodate the strain of a high-density population. There are significant concerns about traffic congestion, public transportation, and overall service capacity. In particular, emergency response times could be delayed, especially in the event of a fire or avalanche. These risks are heightened by the fact that we live in an area that is prone to such natural disasters, and the sole evacuation route would not be sufficient to safely accommodate a much larger population.
The proposed high-density development would also have a devastating impact on the local wildlife habitat. Many of the species currently inhabiting the area ( as evidenced by the abundant animal tracks leading from Wanderers Canyon) rely on the open spaces and natural environment that would be destroyed or disrupted by construction, parking lots, and increased human activity. The community has always been committed to living in harmony with nature, and this change would threaten that balance, leading to the displacement of local wildlife.
Climate change is already presenting challenges to our region, including the increased risk of avalanches and unpredictable weather patterns, such as drought years and erratic rainfall. The reduced snowpack, coupled with a changing hydrology, will strain local water supplies and complicate efforts to manage increased demand from a larger population. Building in this uncertain climate introduces unnecessary risks to both human and wildlife.
Lastly, the addition of residential spaces, along with parking lots, would bring an influx of vehicles, contributing to air and noise pollution, The increased presence of cars would undoubtedly lead into residential street parking disrupting the peaceful environment that current residents value.
We strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and prioritize the character of the community, while taking into account the long-term environmental and safety impacts. It is essential that we protect the unique qualities that make our area a special place to live.
John and Minette Broschofsky

I am opposed to the rezoning that is being proposed. The traffic and parking in the neighborhoods would create unsafe conditions on the city streets. The heights and sizes of multi dwelling buildings would keep streets icy and crowded and snow storage would become non existent. The City of Ketchum claims it wants to keep the small town charm of Ketchum, but this flies in opposition of that goal. The city doesn’t have the infrastructure to handle that growth, Warm Springs Road will be completely overwhelmed. And I find it ironic that that the city knows there is a shortage of workers and work force housing yet they want to drastically increase the city population causing an increased demand for workers that can’t find a place to live. None of the new dwellings the increased density will allow will be used for workforce housing. We do not need anymore absentee homeowners.

This area is well-suited for a variety of industrial and commercial uses, which will be increasingly necessary given the focus on residential development and zoning proposals that allow for higher-density housing.

Clearly, the height and density increases in the new zoning map are not what the community wants (big surprise). Height and density are not on our list of values, and, in fact, fly in the face of our values and will make our value goals unachievable. What is in it for the Ketchum residents- crowded roads, resource waste, blocked views, crowded ski slopes, backed up arts and sports venues, over crowded classrooms, a depleted Big Wood River, fire and hazard risk, depletion of community resources, etc., etc. You are selling out the existing community for the unknown future visitors and the future Johnny-come-lately’s. Go back to the 2014 map, and get rid of all heights over 3 stories. It took Ketchum 120 years to become a lovely community of 4000. Your density proposal could quadruple Ketchum in 10 years. Do the right thing.

I agree with all the comments submitted that are against a rezone from Low to High density of the 25 acre Schernthanner property in WarmSprings.
High density at full build out of 30 units per acre=750 units. Times 4 people per unit = 3,000 people x 1 car per person ( not counting guests parking, service vehicles, etc. etc. Does that not nearly double the population of Ketchum? I live on Emerald next to the Timber’s Condos…16 units. There is no parking allowed on Emerald because of narrow street. People park anyway, service vehicles, garbage cans block half the street width on garbage day. 16 owners ( many VRBO, have dogs and no on-site area for dogs to do their business so the single family homeowners are the repository of these delightful deposits.
This is what happens when high density meets low density.

I strongly oppose the land designation change from low density to high density north of warm springs road. I believe having more residents in warm springs will posse a safety concern with the already very busy traffic on Warm Springs road. In the event of an emergency, such as a wildfire, the increased population could create dangerous evacuation delays and strain an emergency response.

Where are all the environmentalists ?…… all of this proposed density will have a huge footprint on our fragile environment. I am not in favor of changing Warm Springs from LDR to MDR.
The city claims we are using less water . I find this amusing, my water bill hasn’t reflected this !

Whose idea is this? The need for housing includes homes for families. To up zone this property that is one of the few that could potentially provide that type of housing makes no sense. At this time it will only raise the taxes (including funds for the KURA) on that property and impact the quality of life for the entire Warm Springs community which include many of the full time "middle class" residents (and wildlife) who make Ketchum, Ketchum.

I am completely opposed to the High Density zoning update

The radical proposed rezone for the area north of Warm Springs Road will have negative impact across the board. Concentrate high density areas in the downtown and industrial areas. The proposed upzone will change neighborhoods and the quality of living that has been maintained for years. As a 40 year homeowner in the Warm Springs area, I have enjoyed the neighborhood maintained by reasonable and stable land use regulations. The proposed changes to our residential area are way over the top and should be pulled from consideration.

This plan is overwhelming. It contemplates increasing density across each zone by double or more. There is no longer a single family zone.
How does the density square with lot coverage?
Zoning is meant to protect property rights of all owners in those zones. This does just the opposite jamming as many structures as possible in each zone.
If the intent is to create affordable housing thru density this does not guarantee that but is rather a developers dream.
What about safety issues related to cramming as many structures as possible in each zone?
I believe you need to revisit this plan with the peaceful enjoyment of existing property owners in mind.
Respectfully
Alex Higgins
49 year full time resident
200 Aspen Drive
Ketchum

I strongly oppose the high density designation of this section of warm springs. It does not reflect the character of the area nor the interest of the residents who are currently here (and your voting constituents).

I am against the high density zoning proposal north of Warm Springs Road near Flower Drive. Warm Springs canyon has already been over built and the safety of the one way in and out should be a factor in this decision.

Under this "new" plan, why does Wood River Dr. stay low Density Residential, while much the rest of W. Ketchum is moved to the Medium Density? This does not seem fair to those of us on Bordeaux and Sabala.

Specifically in the CC districts, I would request the city not to make any zoning (i.e. cc-1 retail to cc-2 mixed use or vice versa) changes to properties where the comp plan is going to force a change to permitted use, size, mass or density calculations to a lower amount than currently permitted or it does not make sense.
For example, the NE side of Spruce Street (edge of city towards SV) is zoned as mixed use, but the proposed comp plan is planning for a change to retail core.   This change would force the existing uses on those properties (two churches and two office buildings) to obtain a CUP to continue the current or future use moving forward.  This specific area is also in a part of town that adjoins residential and office space with very little (zero) current retail activity. If the zoning changes between mixed use and retail core will change density or height limitations to something less than currently allowed by code, it would also cause a drastic change to potential future development and loss of value to current owners.
In areas of town like Main Street N of 5th St where most, if not all, properties have a retail component, then the change to retail core from mixed use can be implemented without a hit to the property value and would have much less impact on the current use of these properties into the future.

The "DRAFT FUTURE Land Use Categories" states that Low Density Residential is being considered (in draft) to include not only Single Family homes but also (in draft) Duplexes. This draft should not be adopted. Duplexes are multi-family and should NOT be included/allowed in and drafts being considered for Low Density Residential zones.

I am strongly against the proposal to change the zoning from low density to high density north of Warm Springs Road near the Four Seasons. Below are some of the reasons for my opinion:

- There are already two condo complexes RIGHT HERE (the Four Seasons Condo and the Fields). These folks have limited parking opportunities and so cars are nearly always parked illegally in the residential streets. Many folks walking their dogs (and not cleaning up waste), renting their units to short term renters who are not connected/committed to the neighborhood or town, and the noise that comes along with high density living. Building MORE of this so close to existing presents a challenge.

- This will alter the current aesthetics and character of this neighborhood. Having 3 story condos right up against the beautiful hillside that we enjoy will be a shame and negatively effect our enjoyment of the area and our property value.

Again, I am strongly against changing the designation from low to high density housing in the Four Seasons neighborhood of Warm Springs as identified in the proposed Ketchum comprehensive plan. No thank you!

My husband and I have lived for almost three decades on Bordeaux Street, and it is a very special neighborhood. It’s a unique residential street; it’s short in length from one stop sign to the other where the homes are mostly two stories and the people who live here are teachers, first responders, small business owners, retired long-time residents, realtors, carpenters, waitresses, financial planners, ski coaches, photographers, and county employees. We have kids here, and cats and dogs, and one neighbor’s child reminded me “there’s one hamster.” We are one of the last neighborhoods that truly represents community housing. We want Bordeaux Street, along with Sabala Street to be in the Lower Density land use and not the Medium given the proposed changes that could adversely affect our quality of life. Given one of the Plan’s stated themes is to preserve the Character of Ketchum, allowing unregulated higher densities will have the opposite effect, incentivizing market rate, short term rentals and occupancies pushing out full-time residents/community members.

Please change the language of the medium density, low density and high density designations so that it does not increase densities beyond what is currently allowed by the 2014 plan, except as a bonus if deed restricted long-term or community housing is proposed. Language should also be added to support that zoning code language should guide development in the residential zones to be in scale with the neighborhood, promote safe mobility for all users, maintain adequate fire protection, water and waste management service, and protect natural vegetation.

Regarding large out of scale, single family residences, the City can implement restrictions that work, and not be considered a taking of property rights. Allow for single-family homes, including detached townhomes, in the medium density range use designation, but consider prohibiting the combination of lots to keep multiple lots from being turned into one big lot with one oversized house on it. Finally, consider a maximum residential building size.

I am against changing zoning in “open space” areas of Warms Springs to high density. The existing character of Warms Springs should be carefully preserved. We are fortunate to have an area like WS so close to town. We are already changing the character of downtown with projects like Bluebird and the proposed Washington street project. Let’s not start doing the same thing to WS. Add to this the impact on wildlife and it’s just a bad idea. We have better options for high density housing.

The city is missing a huge opportunity in this area to create mixed use commercial incorporating both workforce and market rate housing, as well as restaurants, galleries and retail. This is prime in city property that should not be dedicated to light industrial that dedicates land to lumber yards and storage units.

I do not like higher density in Warm Springs. We have enough traffic on Warm Springs Road. I am concerned if there were a fire or other emergency out of Warm Springs evacuation would be extremely difficult.

221 Northwood way. Does my 1000sf studio w 13’ ceilings, exits on east and west sides, sprinkler system, bathroom /shower, 2 parking spaces for my unit, qualify for live work. I am artist.

I am 100% against "Updating" the land zoning to high-density. It is already zoned for development. It should not be permitted for high-density development

The longstanding and historic zoning of this parcel as LR (Low Residential) reflects a carefully considered land-use strategy, consistent with the character of the entire north side of Warm Springs Road. The purpose of LR zoning is to protect residential properties, prevent overcrowding, and preserve natural features and open spaces—values that define the Warm Springs region.
The proposed change to High-Density Residential (18-30 units per acre, up to three stories) would irreparably harm the immediate neighborhood's character, value, and livability, as well as the greater Warm Springs area and community. Increased traffic, noise, and light pollution would disrupt our peaceful residential community and degrade the quality of life for current residents. Furthermore, this property has served as a vital wildlife corridor and sanctuary for deer, elk, and even moose, which rely on it to access Warm Springs Creek and the Big Wood River. High-density development would destroy this habitat and further endanger the wildlife we cherish.
We cannot allow the loss of this essential natural resource or the transformation of our community into an overcrowded, urbanized area. It is already zoned for development. I strongly oppose the proposed REZONING and urge that this parcel remain designated as LR (Low Residential) to uphold the integrity, tranquility, and ecological balance of Warm Springs Road.

Regarding the 25-acre SCHERNTHANNER ACRES SUB
LOT 2 BLK 1
RPK05170000020
The historic and current land use zoning for this parcel is LR, Low Residential. This is consistent with all of the residential properties on the north side of Warm Springs Road. The purpose of the LR Low Residential District is to identify and preserve residential properties, to prevent overcrowding of land in order to preserve natural features and openness. The new Comp Plan Future Land Use proposes to change the zoning to High Density residential (18-30 residential units per acre), three stories or less. This would be detrimental to the value and character of Warm Springs residential properties. Traffic, noise and light pollution would affect the entire area. The property has been preserved as a wildlife reserve for many years. Deer, elk and an occasional moose live on the property and travel to Warm Springs Creek and the Big Wood River. High density development would have negative impacts on wildlife. I favor leaving the property in the LR, Low Residential zoning and land use.

The City needs to reach out to the county to get density zones changed .

What is the Red Zone?

Please allow ADUs on existing multi family and have exemptions for setbacks. We live in/own a home that was divided into two units prior to city annexation. We have previously been denied building a garage with an ADU due to already being considered a multi family unit, even though it is only one house with an apartment upstairs and downstairs. We would love to add another long term rental to our property.