It is my understanding that the driveway you mention is a revokable (sp?) easment. If ITD needs it back, the guy loses it with no compensation. He has “real” access through brian way subdivision.

The Hammer Flat subdivision has access on Highland Valley road, and into Brian Way subdivision. If may not be the “quality” of access they, or the Brian Way people, prefer, but they do have access.

PS. As of about 3:30 this afternoon, ITD reviewed the reason they took the property in the first place and decided their justification was still valid, and necessary.

They are keeping the land, and The Cliffs is checking plan B.

Tony Jones

The question is can Skyline get the application approved without the ITD parcel of land. As I understand it, they own property abutting Highland Valley Road and an acccess point to the Brian Way subdivision. I believe Skyline also owns the private road in the illegal subdivsion on the back of Hammer Flat. Upgrading the two roads with Warm Springs Avenue access could cost peanuts, if there were a bidding war for the ITD parcel.

EDITOR NOTE–If the daily can be trusted, the ITD has taken their land off the table! Back to square one on the access issue.

Protect the foothills
Stop The Cliffs!

Based on the Guardian’s description in this article of where the State land is located, this “driveway” seems to cut through State property to reach Warm Springs Ave. It appears to do what the developer seems to be asking to do – access Warm Springs Ave. From the aerial photo, the house also appears to have paved access to Brian Way. Does anyone know how this “driveway” got there? Does it cross State land? If it does, why and how did ITD grant access? Or did they?

Curious George

You mention “Every land owner is guaranteed access …”. Is there an Idaho Code section covering that? If so, what is it? Just curious.

Tony

Based on comments in this article, I assume you are “King of the Hill” :-). You mention “… especially if they already have access in a variety of other places.” Are you referring to the proposed Hammer Flats development? If so, where are the other access points that you feel are available? Just curious.

JQP

You are right, the issue is access. I have no idea if the law says every land owner is guaranteed access to a public right of way. However, I am pretty sure there is nothing on the books that says the state is obliged to grant access wherever a person chooses, especially for free, and especially if they already have access in a variety of other places.

You are also right that the theoretical maximum number of residences the Foothills Policy Plan would allow is higher than 300. However, in an area with steep slopes and gullies, and with the requisite set asides for roads and sidewalks, about the only way to get more then 300 homes on the remaining 175 acres is put up multi story condo type structures. I have my doubts about the demand for such a solution, but you are right, numbers above 300 are possible with the FPP.

ps to WYIM

Everything you said is in the public record and most of it is listed on my various web sites. About the only thing that is not public knowledge are the options I have discussed with Fish and Game for retiring the illegal subdivision, including my portion, from private ownership. I am a very public person. I even sign my own name.

Tony Jones

Maybe letting Skyline develop the land using the city’s foothill ordinance is the best way to go, but check the math (the actual ‘ordinance’ has a very different density bonus formula than that proposed in the ‘policy plan’). If Skyline sets 3/4 of their 707 acres aside as ‘open space’ (even with no public access or habitat restoration) they will be granted a density bonus of 4 dwelling units per acre – in addition to the 17 homes they could build right now. This makes for 724 homes, a little more than ~300.

I believe the county did adopt the city’s foothills policy plan – but just for the land within Boise’s area of city impact. But I too would like to have this discussed during the election this Fall, but I imagine Paul Woods could provide a little fresher perspective.

For the record, I’m not even remotely related to Tucker Johnson – or anyone else with a financial interest in the development (including Tony Jones). Now, I’ve never performed a geneological search to prove this, it’s just not my sort of thing.

Tony says there should be no development on the plateau, but he lives there

Tony says local governments should follow their comp plans, but he lives in an illegal subdivision

Tony complains about the extra traffic on the streets, but he has to drive anywhere from his house on Hammer Flats

i heard he works for developers and helped get tamarack through. is that true or not?

the fact that none of this info is on his website shows he has something to hide

The proposed development is surrounded by publicly owned land on three sides. Yes, there are some exceptions but basically it’s surrounded by public lands. That limits access to and from unless some type of easement is granted by public agencies.

If the developer is to unable obtain the ITD land, the only other potential access points seem to be either through the narrow road (about 20 ft wide) that meets Highway 21 near Sandy Point or narrow streets (about 20 to 30 ft wide depending on the street) such as Brian Way, Teresa Drive, or Eastwood Place in the subdivision on the downtown side of the development. It appears all these streets would need substantial upgrading to provide access to the proposed development. The residents would probably be thrilled to have all that new traffic in their neighborhood. Another option might be to purchase more privately held land on the downtown side of the project to create a corridor perhaps using Highland Valley Road as access to Warm Springs Ave. Expensive but an option.

Has any group looked into using federal (or state?) land conservation fund dollars to buy this property? Or finding some nice rich person to partner with the Nature Conservatory to buy the land? I guess Foothills levy money is an option but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

Perhaps the failure of Ada County to adopt the foothills policy plan is something that might be debated during the Commissioners race this fall. Sharon?

And Sis, that development (Cliffside Sub) on the south side of Highway 21 between the freeway and the river is surrounded by public land on the south and east (river) sides and private land on the west (freeway) side.

JQP