32 replies to this topic

[DougP]

After reviewing the planning commision's meeting minutes I was surprised to see that there are plans underway to add another 56 homes in Folsom's Central District. (In addition to the homes being added to "The Enclave")

Thirty-four of these homes are going to be squeezed on the small parcel of land at the corner of Sibley and Glenn.

Another twenty-two are slated for the property just up the street from Sibley on Levy Rd. (This land is behind the California Hills subdivision, adjacent to the end of Gisler Ct.)

Given that the Levy site is only 2.2 acres, and according to the plans it's going to maintain a .27 acre open space, the 22 homes will each be sqeezed on land that is about .09 acres each.

Personally, I understand that most open land is simply waiting to be developed by someone. However, I'm at a loss as to understand why the planning comission is approving and encouraging such high-density "single family" homes.

In the long run, I suppose it's better than apartments or condos, but it seems to be a blight on an already well-developed area.

What are other Folsom residents feelings regarding squeezing so many homes on such little land?

[Terry]

After reviewing the planning commision's meeting minutes I was surprised to see that there are plans underway to add another 56 homes in Folsom's Central District.  (In addition to the homes being added to "The Enclave")

Thirty-four of these homes are going to be squeezed on the small parcel of land at the corner of Sibley and Glenn.

Another twenty-two are slated for the property just up the street from Sibley on Levy Rd. (This land is behind the California Hills subdivision, adjacent to the end of Gisler Ct.)

Given that the Levy site is only 2.2 acres, and according to the plans it's going to maintain a .27 acre open space, the 22 homes will each be sqeezed on land that is about .09 acres each.

Personally, I understand that most open land is simply waiting to be developed by someone.  However, I'm at a loss as to understand why the planning comission is approving and encouraging such high-density "single family" homes.

In the long run, I suppose it's better than apartments or condos, but it seems to be a blight on an already well-developed area.

What are other Folsom residents feelings regarding squeezing so many homes on such little land?

I find it ironic that each of these properties' owners submitted plans over the last 10 years or so for various small business complexes (the Levy Road was supposed to be the doggie daycare) but the neighbors bitched so much that none of those plans came to fruition. I recall that some of the alternative suggestions from complaining neighbors was "why not put homes there instead?"

Well, now they've gotten what they've wanted. Be careful what you wish for.

[Orangetj]

If I had a say in it, I would prefer that they develop that land with homes on decent sized lots rather than stacking them absolutely on top of eachother. There's a 2 or 3 acre parcel on Sibley, right next to Lembi Drive that's being developed with 23 homes. They're squeezing these behind some existing homes and a small apartment complex. If you look at the area, it really looks like it's big enough to hold maybe 10 houses, not 23.

Having said all that, I guess I have to follow it by saying that I would prefer to have this type of "infill" development over further sprawl or additional development south of 50. The biggest concern I really have with these developments is traffic management. I hate to say it, but I don't think a single thing is going to be done to mitigate the traffic impacts of these developments. This is especially bothersome in light of the already bad traffic problems the Central District is dealing with. Adding another 45-50 homes along Sibley certainly isn't going to do anything good for the traffic on this street.

[Orangetj]

I find it ironic that each of these properties' owners submitted plans over the last 10 years or so for various small business complexes (the Levy Road was supposed to be the doggie daycare) but the neighbors bitched so much that none of those plans came to fruition.  I recall that some of the alternative suggestions from complaining neighbors was "why not put homes there instead?"

Well, now they've gotten what they've wanted.  Be careful what you wish for.

I, for one, am glad that they're building homes rather than business complexes. At least the additional people driving on the streets will be residents of the area and may therefore be a bit mindful about their driving while in the neighborhood than people coming in to visit a business would be.

[nhardy]

I don't see any problems adding more homes to the area, however it'll be interesting to see how they are going to fit 34 homes on the corner of Sibley and Glenn. That lot barely looks big enough to hold a 7 eleven. With the stop light there its gonna be a pain in the a** to get in and out of that little square of houses.
But like everyone else who lives near there, I would rather see homes then apartments or business'.

[DougP]

I find it ironic that each of these properties' owners submitted plans over the last 10 years or so for various small business complexes (the Levy Road was supposed to be the doggie daycare) but the neighbors bitched so much that none of those plans came to fruition.  I recall that some of the alternative suggestions from complaining neighbors was "why not put homes there instead?"

Well, now they've gotten what they've wanted.  Be careful what you wish for.

Personally, I'm not one of the people who argued against the "doggie day care". That end of Levy is a commercial one, and a well-maintained commercial property seems more in line with those surroundings.

Additionally, I'm not against homes on either of the properties. However, it seems like the constant addition of "high density" housing is having some pretty big effects on our infrastructure. Why can't the homes be placed with reasonable lot sizes and set backs? (e.g. more in keeping with the rest of Folsom)

Doubtless it's because 56 homes generate more tax revenue than 40.

[nhardy]

Why can't the homes be placed with reasonable lot sizes and set backs?  (e.g. more in keeping with the rest of Folsom)

Where?

[Orangetj]

I don't see any problems adding more homes to the area, however it'll be interesting to see how they are going to fit 34 homes on the corner of Sibley and Glenn. That lot barely looks big enough to hold a 7 eleven. With the stop light there its gonna be a pain in the a** to get in and out of that little square of houses.
But like everyone else who lives near there, I would rather see homes then apartments or business'.

Are they going on the lot next to the gated "senior" community, or kitty corner up against the California Hills subdivision? That lot on the hillside seems much more likely to be able to hold 34 homes than the tiny one on the other side of the street.

[nhardy]

Are they going on the lot next to the gated "senior" community, or kitty corner up against the California Hills subdivision?  That lot on the hillside seems much more likely to be able to hold 34 homes than the tiny one on the other side of the street.

Ah Ha. Kitty corner makes much more sense. I saw the corner you are referring to on the way home today.

[jagayman]

The Levy location will be a tough fit. I guess you can kiss those oaks goodbye. At least the dog kennel was going to work around them.

I'm glad the Sibley/Glenn location will be converted to housing -- although, I bet that big oak is getting the axe as well. I expect a lot of houses backing up to that property would rather have neighbors than another light-polluting gas station.

I wonder how much of these homes are affordable housing?

As for compact lots. We're going to have to get used to it. A few things are pushing them:
1) Developers make a ton per house, regardless of lot size, so they love these guys -- they'd stack them vertically if they could find a way.
2) The city sees an end to the open development areas and are most-likely becoming more and more accepting of "squeezin' 'em in".
3) The city almost did too good a job of balancing jobs with residences. They can afford to shift more space towards residences.
4) SACOG favors higher-density to relieve traffic congestion in the 50-year plan.

Anybody got any ideas on how this could effect school zones?

I am glad that I actually bought my house when they came with some usable land

Jason

[bordercolliefan]

We've had this discussion many times. It seems like the majority of current residents oppose the ever-increasing population and housing density of Folsom -- yet the City Council is oblivious to residents' desires.

There is no doubt that all of this development comes at the cost of existing residents' quality of life: our roads and schools are going to become ever more crowded. Driving around E. Bidwell on Saturday is already so aggravating it just isn't worth it.

As a native New Englander where town populations are not continuously increasing, middle-class people have 1/4 acre lots AT LEAST (thanks to minimum lot size restrictions), and schools generally have available spaces in their classrooms... I have become resigned to the fact that sooner or later, our family will have to move from Folsom to pursue a decent, non-urban quality of life.

[DougP]

Where?

Pretty much any single family homes in Folsom that have been developed in the last 10-15 years.

With the possible exception of the "Oak Villas", my perception is that the average Folsom lot size is between ~.15 and ~.25 acres. Essentially 5 homes per acre. (Obviously there are some exceptions to this)

The newer developments such as "The Enclave" where garages share common walls, and front yards are four feet deep seem to be too tight to me.

The new developments on Levy and Sibley/Glenn seem like they need to make even more compromises.

In addition, my perception has been that the typical Folsom neighborhood has roadways that are large enough for on street parking. The new neighborhoods have roadways narrow enough that they're marked as fire lanes their entire length.

As a result, with tiny roads, and lots < .1 acres, it seems like it's a mad dash for more tax revenue and not preserving what makes Folsom enjoyable.

[New Girl]

Border - at the visioning meetings for the land south of 50 it appeared to me that the majority of groups favored high density walking communities rather than the sprawl of quarter acre lots. The sites that have been mentioned here are all within walking distance of the shops and restaurants (if people chose to do so of course!).

[Ahnold]

Doesn't all of this high-density development have to do with all that Affordable Housing settlement stuff that was going on last year?

[nhardy]

We've had this discussion many times.  It seems like the majority of current residents oppose the ever-increasing population and housing density of Folsom -- yet the City Council is oblivious to residents' desires. 

There is no doubt that all of this development comes at the cost of existing residents' quality of life:  our roads and schools are going to become ever more crowded.  Driving around E. Bidwell on Saturday is already so aggravating it just isn't worth it. 

Please forgive me if I'm missing the point here, but what's the big deal about more housing in Folsom? It's obviously a desireable place to live (which is why my wife and I moved here). Why shouldn't more homes be made available to others?