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.