HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPLICATION & PLANS - Main Street Station - Luce, Greg - Rezone from LDR & MDR to HDRAPPLICANT:
Name A.: N G v► -e S"\ co Av
Address l 7 7 CJ \ ,- e .. N
Si
APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
CITY OF REXBURG
ature of App
L.
City tip 5 e. State _L tl • Zip g ?a Phone(b 3y' 3 • q s�
OWNER: (Complete if owner not applicant) r ac v,o e A r �7 �q-►T L e
� r
Name t�i4- N-
_r
Address C C Aff A-ci-u4)
City Mate Zip Phone
PROPERTY COVERED BY PERMIT:
r L Address M p S� A :.v . S. c . o) e te.v `� s
Presently shown on Comprehensive Plan as: A Ll : -- CA—.N: L -- S : N ' 2 F I y
Request for Comprehensive Plan change to: f : k... e i '$ 4 7
1
Existing use of Property: S ^) ' P �ft u tit h-^' T- / a J 5 Al J)1 : ' i r
l > ) s to � )
NATURE OF REQUEST: Briefly explain the proposed use:
4A : 1 / A-+ / 6 4 2 D C, Iti : + . p e-‘
7 3
1)
Date
6► ^ c I.uc
�ON
Z r,F.tt
APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE
City of Rexburg
APPLICANT: L c f'
Name {}:n) SA' v. ee"\ :pN L. 30t: e htt
Address/P. O. Box 2. 77 S t h e L /v.
Zip Code: 8370.2 0.2 Phone (2 8) 3`13 g .c*
OWNER: (Complete if owner is not Applicant) j. i ,, - p w z
Name De
Address/P. O. Box
City
5-e c R . 1 - 1 c A1 e d
Requirements for Zone Change Request:
/
� S�
Sta' Zip Code Phone
PROPERTY COVERED BY PERMIT:
Address
Legal Description (Lot, Block, Addition, Division Number or Attach Description)
e4
Present Zone:
kIWZ At 17 L Requested Zone: 14: L I P� S = 4
Will this have impact on schools? it E W :\ A� -{- - �5 w'do^'
Existing use of property? -1- / 1) L5't. 4 $ a-1 S 04 * + ( `e P A'
f i r e)
NOV 1 001
OF REXBURG
The following information will assist the Commission and City Council to determine if your
proposal will meet the requirements under the zoning ordinance Address the following points
as applicable on attached sheets.
1. Is the zone change request in accordance the Comprehensive Plan? ) e5
C p r N !'T '= L Ar V ``O iv A Ai
2. Are ater and sewer facilities, fire and police, streets, and schools presently serving the area?
y es
If they are, are they adequate to serve any development under the proposed zoning?
ye S
If not, what measures are being proposed to assure that public facilities and services will be
adequate to serve any new development?
A).-fE
3. Is the site large enough to accommodate the proposed uses, parking and buffering required?
4. What are the surrounding land uses? /It o 1 = ' - C"'`'' y 2^115 L i:* .54-6-,
What are the existing uses presently permitted under the ordin ide? d
Are such uses compatible with neighboring properties and what are neighboring properties ?__
5, Will the zone change be compatible with the existing uses? 1 1 ) e s
What provisions will be made by the developer to assure compatibility?
C /e 4. N V e x: 7 %.,/� 5: 4 4,t, t h
P e . ce..4 , Al V S eJ J
6. Is the nature of the neighborhood changing? 5 f ` f A = S . o^' 4 14:41
S 5
Is a residential area converting to offices or commerpial or i i t s till a strong residential area?
5• . r. hes: a e,c;4.' t ,1,1 � D 'ce b.,✓c Az O14: .77
Will increase traffic reduce the ility of e 'sting uses? N o A( : "✓ s 4.4-..... 4 iS
A (rt4- v ell iiixoro it v:.e.
7. Will all uses permitted within the zone be compatible with the area? I eS
The Commission or Council
those applicable points
..41111111010
Signature of Appli f t ion
address other points than those discussed above, but a narrative addressing at least
st in processing your application.
Date !!�
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Fee: Date Paid: /007
Paid By: Check 107,3 Cash Other —'-
Date of Note: Hearing: P&Z
Council
Rexburg Main Street Station Legal 11/16/2001
Main Street Station
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT ' A'
Parcel 1: A portion of Lots I and 2 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg Townsite, described as follows: Beginning at a point 181.5 feet West of the
Southeast Comer of Lot 1 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof, and running thence
West 313.5 feet; thence North 181 feet; thence East 66 feet; thence South 6 feet; thence East 66 feet; thence North 26 feet; thence East 181.5 feet;
thence South 201 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 28 OF THE ORIGINAL REXBURG TOWNSITE,
MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, AS PER THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, THENCE EAST 10.5 RODS, THENCE NORTH 20
RODS, THENCE WEST 10.5 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 20 RODS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Parcel 3: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 28 OF THE ORIGINAL REXBURG
TOWNS1 h, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, AS PER THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, THENCE WEST 4.5 RODS, THENCE
NORTH 20 RODS, THENCE EAST 4.5 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 20 RODS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Including a 20 foot easement for Ingress and Egress described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Comer of Lot 2 in Block 28, to the
City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and running thence East 178 feet to the point of beginning; thence East 20 feet; thence South
220 feet; thence West 20 feet; thence North 220 feet to the point of beginning
Nov 06 01 04 :25p
October 17, 2001
John Millar
City of Rexburg
12 North Center
Rexburg ID 83440
Re: Zoning Change
Dear Mr. Millar,
CENTURY 21 Advantage Rexb (208) 356 -0628 p.2
I am presently the owner of the attached described property in Block 28 of the Original
Rexburg Townsite. I am in favor of and support the request to change this property from
R -1 residential to `Multi- family' zoning cesignation.
Sincerely,
11 Ray -Bad
283 North 2300 East
St Anthony ID 83445
(356 -8994)
a
r
d 0
ONE BEDROOM 592 SO FT
THREE BEDROOM 1030 SO FT
111111111
J""
/Ns_27
0110
0
a u
� I 0
r:
H
AI IEST:
ORDINANCE NO. 871
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 725 TO REFLECT A
CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY UPON
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SECTION I. Ordinance No. 725 is hereby amended as follows:
The zoning district map of the City of Rexburg is hereby amended to change the zoning
classification of the property located on the north side of West Main between 4 and 5 West
in, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and legally described as follows:
Parcel 1: A portion of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg
Townsite, described as follows: Beginning at a point 181.5 feet West of the
Southeast Corner of Lot 1 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg Townsite,
Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof, and running thence
West 313.5 feet; thence North 181 feet; thence East 66 feet; thence South 6
feet; thence East 66 feet; thence North 26 feet; thence East 181.5 feet; thence
South 201 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 4, Block 28 of the
original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat
thereof, thence East 10.5 rods; thence North 20 rods; thence West 10.5 rods;
thence South 20 rods to the point of beginning.
Parcel 3: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 3, in Block 28 of the
original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat
thereof, thence West 4.5 rods; thence North 20 rods; thence East 4.5 rods;
thence South 20 rods to the point of beginning.
The subject property shall be zoned HDR (High Density Residential), changing it from its
current classification as LDR (Low Density Residential) and MDR (Medium Density
Residential).
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 15t day
of May, 2002.
ce Sutherlan., Mayo
STATE OF IDAHO
County of Madison
I, BLAIR D. KAY, City Clerk of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, do hereby certify:
That the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 725 TO
REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY UPON THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP;
AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ORDINANCE
Passed by the City Council and approved by the Mayor this 15 day of May, 2002.
(SEAL)
:SS
Blair D. Kay, City Clerk
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning &
Zoning Commission of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 7:30 p.m., in
the City Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding
zone change from Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to
High Density Residential (HDR).
The said property is located on the north side of West Main between 4 and 5th West in
Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows:
Parcel 1: A portion of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg Townsite,
described as follows: Beginning at a point 181.5 feet West of the Southeast Corner of Lot
1 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the
recorded plat thereof, and running thence West 313.5 feet; thence North 181 feet; thence
East 66 feet; thence South 6 feet; thence East 66 feet; thence North 26 feet; thence East
181.5 feet; thence South 201 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 4, Block 28 of the original Rexburg
Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof, thence East 10.5
rods; thence North 20 rods; thence West 10.5 rods; thence South 20 rods to the point of
beginning.
Parcel 3: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 3, in Block 28 of the original
Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof, thence West
4.5 rods; thence North 20 rods; thence East 4.5 rods; thence South 20 rods to the point of
beginning.
At such hearing the Planning & Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and
recommendations relative to such proposed approval. The City Clerk will also accept written
comments at City Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on April 9, 2002.
This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67 -6509 and 67 -6511 Idaho Code, and
all amendments thereof.
DAZ'ED this 18 day of March, 2002.
(SEAL)
Published: March 22, 2002 and
April 3, 2002
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF REXBURG
Marilyn Wasden, City Clerk
?/)ae-d-g-t)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of
the City of Rexburg, Idaho, Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 7:40 p.m., in the City Council
Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding zone change from
Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density
Residential (HDR).
The said property is located on the north side of West Main between 4th and 5th West in
Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows:
Parcel 1: A portion of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg Townsite,
described as follows: Beginning at a point 181.5 feet West of the Southeast Corner of Lot
1 in Block 28 of the Original Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the
recorded plat thereof, and running thence West 313.5 feet; thence North 181 feet; thence
East 66 feet; thence South 6 feet; thence East 66 feet; thence North 26 feet; thence East
181.5 feet; thence South 201 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 4, Block 28 of the original Rexburg
Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof, thence East 10.5
rods; thence North 20 rods; thence West 10.5 rods; thence South 20 rods to the point of
beginning.
Parcel 3: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 3, in Block 28 of the original
Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho, as per the recorded plat thereof, thence West
4.5 rods; thence North 20 rods; thence East 4.5 rods; thence South 20 rods to the point of
beginning.
At such hearing the City Council will hear all persons and all objections and recommendations
relative to such proposed approval. The City Clerk will also accept written comments at City
Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on May 14, 2002.
This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67 -6509 and 67 -6511 Idaho Code, and
all amendments thereof.
DATED this 17 day of April, 2002.
B G
(SEAL) Marilyn Wasde , City Clerk
Published: April 24, 2002 and
May 8, 2002
CITY OF REXBURG
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the zone change recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for the
property /properties of Richard Wadholm (a.k.a. WestGate, LLC) around 347 South Fourth West. We oppose this zone
change because our neighborhood is primarily made up of single - family homes. The influx of traffic and noise would be
detrimental to the present neighborhood. We have several families who have children. Their safety and protection is of
grave concern. We purchased our homes in this area seeking a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. We continue to oppose
the High Density Residential Zone for the above - mentioned reasons.
We ask the Planning and Zoning Board to rescind their approval of this zone change. We would like to note that
a similar proposal was turned down by the City Council. We would also like to mention that we would not be opposed
to the said property /properties being changed to a Medium Density Zone. We feel the area could facilitate an increase of
that size. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Names and Signatures
; r
e. Ye_5, , ®, r 1,5 7
(Printed Name)
(Printed Name)
)
(Signature)
( Si a )
Petition by Home Owners Opposing Zone Change
from
Highway Business District to High Density Residential
(Printed 'Name)
.0 €-
k1\ e.. o e.
tt
V 111' e
(Printed
(Signature
/5 )1066 4/
(Printed Name) cJ
-A__
Addresses
Ra -
3�
F 6 , zA,e 6, ,
sy,/ 6-427
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the zone change recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for the
property/properties of Richard Wadholm (a.k.a. WestGate, LLC) around 347 South Fourth West. We oppose this zone
change because our neighborhood is primarily made up of single - family homes. The influx of traffic and noise would be
detrimental to the present neighborhood. We have several families who have children. Their safety and protection is of
grave concern. We purchased our homes in this area seeking a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. We continue to oppc�s
the High Density Residential Zone for the above - mentioned reasons. 1`/I�Ij
We ask the Planning and Zoning Board to rescind their approval of this zone change. We would like to note that
a similar proposal was turned down by the City Council. We would also like to mention that we would not be opposed
to the said property /properties being changed to a Medium Density Zone. We feel the area could facilitate an increase of
that size. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Names and Signatures
(Printed Name) Xij,er-
(Signature) e
Tinted Name)
(Signature)
/I /7( ,r
d
anted Name)
r �
(Signat
\ RA- to r
(Printed Name)
(Signature)
Petition by Home Owners Opposing Zone Change
from
Highway Business District to High Density Residential
)
1
S
Addresses
f ( t Sez .
d'
:7) ) S
a( tik
, q/A
0
33 arc
e4t(ry D 3Y O
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the zone change recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for the
property/properties of Richard Wadholm (a.k.a. WestGate, LLC) around 347 South Fourth West. We oppose this zone
change because our neighborhood is primarily made up of single - family homes. The influx of traffic and noise would be
detrimental to the present neighborhood. We have several families who have children. Their safety and protection is of
grave concern. We purchased our homes in this area seeking a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. We continue to oppose
the High Density Residential Zone for the above- mentioned reasons.
We ask the Planning and Zoning Board to rescind their approval of this zone change. We would like to note that
a similar proposal was turned down by the City Council. We would also like to mention that we would not be opposed
to the said property /properties being changed to a Medium Density Zone. We feel the area could facilitate an increase of
that size. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Nantes and Signatures
(Printed Name)
(Signature)
(Printed Na
,) 4
(Printed Name)
n f fJfJJ
(Signature)
(Printed Name)
(Signature)
Petition by Home Owners Opposing Zone Change
from
Highway Business District to High Density Residential
Addresses
34
f 1
cf
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the zone change recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for the
property/properties of Richard Wadholm (a.k.a. WestGate, LLC) around 347 South Fourth West. We oppose this zone
change because our neighborhood is primarily made up of single- family homes. The influx of traffic and noise would be
detrimental to the present neighborhood. We have several families who have children. Their safety and protection is of
grave concern. We purchased our homes in this area seeking a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. We continue to oppose
the High Density Residential Zone for the above - mentioned reasons.
We ask the Planning and Zoning Board to rescind their approval of this zone change. We would like to note that
a similar proposal was turned down by the City Council. We would also like to mention that we would not be opposed
to the said property/properties being changed to a Medium Density Zone. We feel the area could facilitate an increase of
that size. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Names and Signatures Addresses
(Printlyd Name)
0
/2(
(Printed Name)
(Signa
(Printed Name
(Signature
Petition by Home Owners Opposing Zone Change
from
Highway Business District to High Density Residential
a. ltN";:e.de-Y
(P ' ted Name
L.-at
(Signature)
/ - 1 ,41 1 14 kJ/Le:214-S
Q ft;
tO
trd
_.
7 -n
< 3 t-
�� //1)
-- Re.tot ffi &2-c/Vo
3023 ,3 3 . �)
P .74 rah -rd
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the zone change recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board for the
property /properties of Richard Wadholm (a.k.a. WestGate, LLC) around 347 South Fourth West. We oppose this zone
change because our neighborhood is primarily made up of single- family homes. The influx of traffic and noise would be
detrimental to the present neighborhood. We have several families who have children. Their safety and protection is of
grave concern. We purchased our homes in this area seeking a peaceful and quiet neighborhood. We continue to oppose
the High Density Residential Zone for the above - mentioned reasons.
We ask the Planning and Zoning Board to rescind their approval of this zone change. We would like to note that
a similar proposal was turned down by the City Council. We would also like to mention that we would not be opposed
to the said property/properties being changelto a Medium Density Zone. We feel the area could facilitate an increase of
that size. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Names and Signatures
(Printed-
i elOb � C ei St��
(Print0 Na ),
(Signature
(Printed Name)
(Signature)
(Printed Name)
(Signature)
(Printed Name)
(Signature)
Petition by Home Owners Opposing Zone Change
from
Highway Business District to High Density Residential
ame)
Addresses
cfb
- &-Kbor JO 63v-LW.)
PLANNING & ZONING
February 13, 2002
7:00 p.m.
Chairman: Winston Dyer
Members: Ted Whyte
Glenn Walker
Bobette Carlson
Robert Schwartz
LaDawn Bratsman
Jacob Fullmer
Mike Ricks
P.F.C.: John Millar
City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger
Minutes: Janet Williamson
Winston Dyer welcomed everyone to the meeting and excused some of the members.
Ted reported on his meeting with the new committee on sub divisions. He is gathering data from
many surrounding counties and will be prepared to report at the next P & Z meeting.
Glen asked that they discuss street lighting again and will be prepared to report at the next meeting.
Ted moved to approve the minutes. Bobette seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed.
Site Plan and Parking Review- Ross Farmer - 2'"' E & 2"`' S
John Millar explained where the property was located that is being modified and an explanation of
the plan. Ross Farmer explained his plans. There are more parking spots then the number of
students they will have. There will probably not be anymore then 20 students between the two
houses and there are 23 parking spots. John pointed out that he had not allowed for drainage and
Mr. Farmer said he would work with the City to allow for that. Robert asked what his plans were
to beautify the area.
John explained that if you look at just this one lot the parking plan covers more then what is
allowed; but, where he owns the adjacent lots there is plenty of room for landscaping, etc.
Ted moved to approve this site plan subject to city departments approval. La Dawn seconded the
motion. All aye. None opposed. Motion carried.
(Mike Ricks arrived.)
1
Ted commented that they are aware that these people have been here before but the commission is
concerned with how this will ever develop. If left single family would these lots ever sell or just
be weed fields and an eye sore on the community. They see this going MDR..
Winston explained that the issue before the commission was single family verse multi family. Exact
zoning would come later with more public hearings. (Discussion)
Mike moved to deny the change and have it remain single family. LaDawn seconded the motion.
Discussion that under the present zoning ofLDRlthere are still opportunities for development here.
As it stands now, a duplex would be allowed as a conditional use. All voted aye. None opposed.
Motion carried.
#7. North Main between 4"` and 5 West.
Winston declared a potential conflict of interest and asked Glen Walker to chair this issue.
John presented the area in question. It is proposed to go from single to multi family.
Ralph Brian - 450 West Main
Mr. Brian owns property by this area. He speaks for Pat and Graydon Burton also who are on a
mission at this time. He is in agreement with Dr. Daniels. He feels that if the council is not careful
on where apartments are placed Rexburg is going to become a seriously undesirable place to live.
Putting a high density complex here would add to the traffic on Main Street and 5t West.
Cindy Wakefield 23 N 5 W
She is concerned that this will become an undesirable area of the community. The area is already
burdened with subsidized housing.
David Daniels - If you look at the comprehensive plan there are 16 areas to go to multi family. He
understands that the city is doing a study that has not come out and feels they should wait and look
at the study.
Christine Beesley - 66 N 5t W.
This has always been a nice residential area. There have been a lot of traffic changes and she is
concerned with the increased traffic. She agrees with Dr. Daniels and Mr. Brian. She is opposed
to apartments in her back yard.
Craig Hammond - 451 w 1 st N
There are homes all along here. He feels it should be kept single family. There are cement trucks
going up and down 5 W and apartments would add to the traffic.
DJ Barney- 410 W 1'N
He is a business and property owner in this area. He explained conditions of the existing
properties. The whole area fell through the cracks after the flood with planning and zoning. There
4
are many different uses of the entire area already. A lot of it is turning to weeds. They were here
a year a go to have this be commercial. This property has not been used and it is time to find a use
for it.
Public comment closed.
John clarified that the south half of the block is MDR and can be developed without a
comprehensive plan change.
(Discussion)
Clarification from Stephen: They can reduce the area without going back to publication but they
cannot increase the area.
Mike moved that they approve the change to multi family on the comprehensive plan. Jacob
seconded the motion. Discussion of what area to include. The homes on 5t W and 1 N that are
already single family would stay single family.
Voting aye: Mike Ricks Glen Walker
Robert Schwartz Bobette Carlson
Jacob Fullmer Ted Whyte
Voting nay: LaDawn Bratsman
Abstaining: Winston Dyer
Motion carried.
#9.2° East between 1" & 2'" S. and 2' South between 1" & 2 °d E
The request is for this area to go from single family to multi family. John explained the area and
mentioned that most of the homes on 2n S between 1 st and 2° E are existing multi family units..
Also on 2` E from 1s` S. to 3` S. He clarified where multi family and single family are now at
current use.
The meeting was opened to public comment.
Craig Rindlisbacher - 266 Harvard.
He works for the city but is here as a concerned citizen. He does not live in this area but is a
neighbor and friend to those who do. Submitted comments. (Attached) Major concerns were: homes
designed to function as single family dwellings, long -term consequences of changing the land use
in the comprehensive plan; `dismantling the community structure', rejects notion that these
neighborhoods are already in transition.
Gwen Butler 225 Harvard Ave
Gwen explained what has happened in the neighborhood. She agrees with Craig in protecting the
integrity of the neighborhood. She asked what was driving all these changes. She feels they are not
given enough single family living. There are not enough parking spots around the college now.
5
REXBURG PLANNING & ZONING
April 10, 2002
7:00 p.m.
Chairman: Winston Dyer, excused
Members: Robert Schwartz, acting chairman
Ted Whyte
LaDawn Bratsman
Bobbette Carlson
Glenn Walker
Jacob Fullmer
Mike Ricks
Doug Smith
P.F.C. John Millar
City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger
Minutes: Janet Williamson
Jacob moved to approve the minutes of March 27, 2002. Glenn seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Noncontroversial Items:
Ted met with Ammon City planners. They are encouraging no curb and gutter in rural areas and
finding it quite favorable. He will continue getting more information.
The mayor would like to know if the planning and zoning commission could meet on Thursday nights
instead of Wednesdays. Thursdays would be a conflict for Doug. Contact those not here and see if
they have a conflict.
Public Hearing for Annexation and Zone Change to MDR - 500 S. 1500 W. - De Jones
Chair opened the public hearing.
Glenn declared a conflict of interest and stepped away from the table.
John Millar explained the location of the property. The request is for a change from RR to MDR.
The City is in the process of extending sewer and water lines to this area.
De Jones - Developer
He feels it is a good location for family units and possibly HDR. John pointed out that they cannot
go to HDR.
Rod Jones - Realtor
When they were looking at this property, with the storage units, canal, and freeway by it, it is not
attractive for residential but is nice for multi family.
No more comments. Hearing closed.
1
Commission Discussion: Spencer Larsen's home was pointed out on the map. Bobbette read from
the Zoning Ordinance what was allowed in MDR. There are 3.94 acres located in this development.
There are higher and lower density located in this same area. Further south there are some 4 piexes
being built. The comprehensive plan is compatible. (More discussion of area.)
Mike moved that they approve this annexation and zone change with the condition that they treat it
as 3 acres. Stephen said you cannot limit the zone change. You can deal with this with a site plan
and development agreement. Motion died.
Ted moved that they approve the annexation and zone change as written to go to public hearing
before the City Council. LaDawn seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Glenn
abstained. Motion carried.
Public Hearing for Zone Change from HBD to HDR - 347 S. 4th W. - Rick Wadholm
Rick Wadholm - Developer
They would like this zone change on his property and if that happens the other two properties by him
will go for a zone change also with the intention of providing married student housing.
John explained the area. There is a vacant lot by this property.
Val Christensen - 430 S. 3r E.
Everything from campus south is commercial. A lot of this area will be going HDR. Rick has
considered storage sheds here which would be allowed but he feels multi family housing would be
better.
Craig Frisby - North of property
Craig has nothing against it but would like provisions that would keep it married student.
(That will be dealt with in the site plan review)
(Doug Smith arrived.)
No more comments. Public hearing closed.
Commission Discussion: This property and a few others went multi family on the comprehensive plan.
Ted felt it lends itself to multi family. LaDawn was concerned with the nice residential homes on the
north and would like to see that it is preserved. Glenn had no problem with it.
Bobbette moved that they approve the zone change from HBD to HDR and send it to public hearing
before the City Council. Glenn seconded the motion. No further discussion. All voted aye. None
opposed. Motion carried.
Public Hearing for Zone Change from LDR and MDR to HDR - Greg Luce
North Main between 4th and Stn West
2
John Millar explained the area. It is in 3 parcels. It does not include the Barney property.
Greg Luce - Developer
Greg handed out a proposed site plan and said they are consistent with the comprehensive plan. They
are proposing 68 units on 3.8 acres.
Del J Barney - 410 West Main
He is in favor of this and hopes they will be protected by buffering. He does live in this area.
Cindy Wakefield - 5 West
She lives across from this property and asked that they do not go high density. She feels it would be
unbalanced and would not like to overload one area with low income housing. She has nothing
against that kind of housing but would like it spread out around the community
Karen Brian - borders property
She agrees with Cindy and feels it would be overloading one area with high density. She is opposed
to it.
Craig Hanni- 451 W. 1 N
Craig handed out pictures of the view from his home of this area. If this goes high density will they
be assured that there won't be cars, trucks, etc. stored there. It needs to be developed but there are
a lot of things in there that can't be seen on the aerial picture. Apartment there would be high and
look into his home. He is opposed to it.
Christine Beesley - 66 N 5 W
She is concerned about HDR. Will it reduce her property value? She has a narrow back yard and
can't buffer it. This area was considered for the new library and turned down because of the traffic
and apartment traffic will be worse. She teaches at the elementary school in that neighborhood. They
already have a lot of low income housing in this area and it does effect the schools. She is opposed
to it and hopes they will take into consideration the feelings of the neighbors.
Larry Widdison - .447 W 1 N.
He is opposed to the number of people being put there.
Wilma Parkinson - 75 N 5t W
She would like it put on the record that she is opposed to this She represents another neighbor, Lois
Virgin who is also opposed to it.
Jack Covington - 464 W. 1" N.
His house is right in a direct line of the small roadway and would like to know if people are going to
be allowed to drive in and out on it. If they are their lights will shine right in his bedroom.
Stephen said the tendering of that site plan is probably inappropriate because the question is zoning
change not site plan approval.
3
Rebuttal: Greg Luce said the good part and the bad part about the site for multi family residential is
it is close to being in town. It is presently zoned for offices. He is not proposing low income
housing. The rent for the 3 bedroom units will be $540, for 2 bedroom units will be $460 and the 1
bedroom units will be just under $400. His other developments are nice, the neighbors are happy
with what he does and property values have gone up. He is proposing 20 units per acre - a little more
then half of what is allowed in HDR.
No more comments. Public hearing closed.
Commission Discussion: Doug felt that piece of property has set idle for years with no development
or care. He understands the concerns of the neighbors but in the long run it will enhance the other
properties. Ted felt Mr. Luce's track record is good. Bobbette agreed with Doug. This fills the need
for married student housing. Mike felt this would be a good thing to change to HDR. This ground
has set idle for years. Jacob could see the concern with high density but as proposed he was less
concerned. Glenn was only looking at the zone change and feels it is warranted at that location.
LaDawn knows the neighborhood and she is against the zone change. Robert was tom - the property
has been lying idle and needs to be developed but he also sees the concern of the neighbors and the
character of the neighborhood and wonders if MDR isn't sufficient.
Doug moved that they approve the zone change from LDR and MDR to HDR as indicated on the
application and that it go to public hearing before the City Council. Mike seconded the motion.
Discussion: Bobbette was concerned that if this goes to HDR there is nothing to prevent this from
going to more then what Mr. Luce is showing. Voting as follows:
Voting Aye: Ted Voting Nay: Robert
Glenn LaDawn
Jacob Bobbette
Mike
Doug
Motion carried.
Public Hearing for Annexation and Zone Change to MDR - Ted Whyte
480 S. 1500 W.
Ted Whyte declared a conflict of interest and stepped away from the table.
John Millar pointed out the area involved on the aerial map. It is approximately 5 acres and they are
seeking MDR.
Ted Whyte - 610 Taurus - Realtor
At the time of application there was a pending sell of this lot. They are still pursuing that and would
like it to be annexed and be zoned MDR. It is presently RR.
No comments. Public hearing closed.
4
Commission Discussion: Glen felt it was similar to the De Jones property and sees it as a good use
of the property next to the freeway. All agreed.
A motion was made by Glenn that they accept this application as written for annexation and a zone
change to MDR and send this to public hearing before the City Council. All voted aye. None
opposed. Ted abstained. Motion carried.
Public Hearing for Annexation and Zone Change to MDR & HDR - Mark Andrews
528 S. 1500 W.
After showing area on the overhead, John explained that south of it is MDR, north is proposed to be
zoned HDR, east is zoned HDR . It is currently zoned RR.
Mark Andrews - Idaho Falls, Developer
Mark feels this is the highest and best use of this property. They wanted something that would look
nice from the freeway. HDR would work well by the storage units. On the south MDR would be
more spread out and blend well with the community and would be a good transition on the south by
the LDR1 neighborhood. They need HDR but will have only 19 units per acre. Area #3 has a lot of
property line disputes. Developing it as a project would be easier to resolve some of those issues
rather then breaking it off into individual lots.
John pointed out that annexation and zoning is independent of site development.
Rus VanAllen - 932 S. 1560 W.
He is asking for compromise, a transition and consideration of area. He does not think it is fair to
have the upper 2/3's of this property for high density. Across 1500 W. there is an area for HDR.
Most of what is due east of what he is proposing for high density is residential area. Only a small
section of it would be high density. They need to be consistent. Continue to be consistent with the
2 pieces of property that you have passed for MDR He is opposed to what is being proposed.
Mary Ann Beck, 1442 W. 1000 S., said that Rus speaks for her also.
Mark Andrews - rebuttal: He appreciates Russ's concerns. They have tried to address this the best
they could. They did consider putting in one street of residential and felt it would not blend well.
The proposed 4 Plex would blend better. Also, residential along the freeway would be a hard sell.
No more comments. Public hearing closed.
Commission Discussion: Ted felt it does need to stay MDR where it does approach some of the
LDR1 zoning Bobbette had a tendency to go to MDR also and not have the high density. Mike felt
the same. Jacob approved of it the way it was proposed. LaDawn appreciates the neighbors who
come and express their view points. She goes with the MDR for the whole thing. Doug could see
justification for HDR as well as MDR. There is some inconsistency. Glenn asked for a clarification
of where the line was drawn for MDR and HDR. John explained that they could expand the lower
5
density but could not go higher density than what was proposed. (Surrounding area explained.
Discussion.) Glenn asked the developer his thought on moving the MDR to the north. Mark said
they are bordering HDR all around. They are proposing 19 units not 30 and they can have more
green area. Glen could see that in many cases HDR could be developed better than MDR. Mike was
still nervous about granting HDR and whether or not the developer would hold to what he has
proposed.
John asked legal counsel if the City could do an agreement to limit the density. Stephen said if they
are contiguous to the city they have the right to annexation and we cannot restrict that with additional
requirements.
Mike moved that they approve the application as proposed and send it to public hearing before the
City Council. Glenn seconded the motion. Discussion. Jacob felt they were safe as long as they
watch this development
All voted aye except Bob who voted against. Motion carried.
(Bobbette had to leave for another engagement.)
Final Sub Division Plat Review - 7t S. & 4 E. - Eaglewood Addition
After explaining the area involved, John stated that this still needs to be reviewed by the departments.
It is in conformance with the preliminary plat.
Ted declared a conflict of interest and stepped away from the table.
Ted, representing the developer, explained that the lots to the West and South (by Aspen Apartments)
will be townhouses. They will continue Yale Avenue so there is consistency with the street names.
Lot #11 block 3 is owned by the Neville family. There is an effifotyWgriwell on that property.
They have given him permission to represent them and that they own that lot separate from the
developer. Eventually, as those water rights are transferred off or the well is abandoned they will
become part of that development and eliminate the well that is there. They are in agreement with this
proposal. (Discussion.)
7th South will have a bend in it to correct it and bring it back on the section line. As Yale Avenue
comes through off of 5t South it does come through the comer of Aspen Village Apartments. They
have not acquired approximately 3,000 square feet there. They are in negotiation now. It is looking
favorable.
Doug moved that they approve this plat with the provision that they acquire the property at the end
of Yale Avenue - the northeast corner of Aspen Village, approximately 3,000 square feet; and, that
the city departments sign off on it. LaDawn seconded the motion. Discussion. Glenn feels it is a nice
project. All voted aye. None opposed. Ted abstained. Motion carried.
Request for a zone change from LDR to MDR to go to public hearing- 710 S. 5 W. - Kay
Burton
6
Kay Burton - Afton, Wyoming - Developer
They presently have a conditional use permit making it a duplex. They have 4 single girls in the
upstairs. They are remodeling the basement. The reason for the request for the zone change is so
they could remodel the garage and make a managers apartment so it could be BYU -ID approved.
It is approximately .97 acres. The garage is attached to the house and they would have to add to it
a little bit. Across the street and to the north is MDR.
Glenn remembered that the neighborhood wants this to remain LDR. (Discussion.)
Mike moved that they deny the request for the zone change. LaDawn seconded the motion. All
voted aye except Doug who voted nay. Motion carried.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit - 246 W. 2' N. - Tom Williams
John explained the home involved. They are requesting that this go to public hearing for the issuance
of a CUP to go from a single family residents to a duplex in this home. The area is currently zoned
LDR1 which, by zoning, does require a CUP.
Tom Williams - Developer
Tom said there are some duplexes in the block West of his home. They have enough parking. The
basement does have a separate entrance.
Ted moved that they approve this and send it to public hearing. Doug seconded the motion. All
voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried.
Request for a zone change - 564 S. 5 W. - Stone's Town and Country
John explained the property in question.
Glenn moved that they send this to public hearing for the proposed zone change from MDR to HBD.
LaDawn seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried.
Request for to go to public hearing for Annexation and Zone Change - 715 S. S tn W.
Cal Hulse
This property is the SE corner of 7 S. and 5 W. John said it is approximately 1 acre. They are
requesting a zone change from RR to MDR.
Ted was wondering if this should wait until the Jeppesen property comes before them again. Could
this be done all at one time to eliminate the neighbors from coming in multiple times?
Mrs. Hulse pointed out that at one time the commission had approved the Jeppesen property for
MDR and it was the Jeppesens that didn't want to develop it for MDR.
Mike didn't feel the timing was right to annex this in to the City. That whole side of the road is not
in the city limits. Ted disagreed. 5 S. and 7 W. have been expanded and services are down there
7
and there have been multiple requests for annexation further on down. Doug felt the same as Ted.
(Discussion.)
Doug moved to send this to public hearing. Discussion: NE corner is MDR. All of the highway
frontage is MDR to the trailer court. LaDawn had a hard time with their turning down the Burton
property for MDR and then approving this. (Surrounding area discussed.) Mike wants to leave this
residential. Glenn said they have been approving MDR all over town. He feels it should stay
residential. Ted seconded the motion. Voting as follows:
Aye: Doug Nay: Glen
Ted LaDawn
Jacob Mike
Bob
Motion failed.
Request for a Conditional Use Permit - 342 E. 5th S. - Jerry Scrivner
John explained that the current zoning of this property is LDR1 and the area requirement for a duplex
is to go to public hearing for a CUP.
Doug moved to send this to public hearing for a CUP. Mike seconded the motion. All voted aye.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Site Plan Approval - 160 E. Valley River Dr. - Rick Barton
John explained that this is by the new Sonic Burger on 2' E. They recently approved a sub division
here dividing it in to 4 lots. This property is the westerly most portion. They are looking at doing
a strip mall type building. Water and storm drainage explained. Departments are still reviewing this
plan. Kent Hillman, contractor, said that he took this over to Chris Huskinson with the fire
department and he had no problems with it.
Glenn moved that they accept the site plan contingent on departmental approval. Ted seconded the
motion. No discussion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried.
Downtown Vision Committee Report
No one was present from the committee. John said they went before City Council. The diagonal
parking was defrayed until the next council meeting. On Friday they are meeting with Idaho
Transportation .
Miscellaneous:
Glen made some phone calls to Utah Power and Light and Pacificorp and found out that they recently
made some changes and opened up additional lighting fixtures for Wyoming and Idaho similar to what
they are allowing in Salt Lake City. There are about 5 or 6 different lighting fixtures. They are
"period" type fixtures. They do charge different maintenance fee to have those from what we
currently have.
Mike moved to adjourn. Jacob seconded the motion. All voted aye. (9:45 p.m.)
8
STATE OF IDAHO, )
County of Madison ) SS.
City of Rexburg )
Present were the following:
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
March 14, 2002
7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Bruce Sutherland
Council Members: Paul Pugmire
Nyle Fullmer
Donna Benfield
Glen Pond
Shawn Larsen
Marsha Bjornn
City Clerk: Marilyn Wasden
Finance Officer: Richard Horner
PFC: John Millar
City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger
Mayor Sutherland discussed the meeting and set the rules. He stated he would go through each
item one at a time, he admonished the citizens to take their time and identify the items they are
most interested in, they will then discuss each item in an order beginning with the one that has
the most people here to testify. The Mayor stated testimony will be held at two minutes
maximum. Anyone is welcome to speak but if the testimony had been stated before and is in the
minutes, unless you feel very strongly please do not repeat and there will be no toleration of
discussion among the parties either pro or con. All statements will be directed to the Council.
Pledge to the flag.
Introduction of scouts.
Paul made a motion to approve the minutes of March 6, 2002, seconded by Donna. All voted
aye, none opposed.
Mayor Sutherland asked for those in attendance to stand when he called the number on the
Comprehensive Plan in order to accommodate the most controversial items first.
1
what he sees in apartments and rental areas. Mike has a friend on the NE corner of 1st So near
college rentals, he at various times expresses the disapproval of activities in the rental units,
they haul furniture out and make things unsightly, they play football in the street, the
neighborhood does not require that increase in traffic and lower standards. He is opposed to the
change.
Toby Thornton - 225 E. 2n South
Toby was born and raised in the area in question, he loves it tons. He sees all the college
housing and feels sorry for the changes people want. He feels the change would be a big
downplay and a bad mistake and would be better to keep it as it is.
Testimony closed on this issue.
Discussion on location of property and the recommendation of Planning & Zoning. Paul pointed
out the homes which have already been purchased by one person, and the reason he makes this
point is that property lines are no longer any consequence. If this is changed you open it up to a
bull dozer with one owner. He reviewed what a neighborhood is in his mind. If approved as
recommended it would open up a fundamental change. Discussion of zoning in that area and
this would bring the Comprehensive Plan into compliance. Zoning takes precedence over the
Comprehensive Plan because zoning was already in place at the time of the Comprehensive
Plan. Discussion.
Paul feels this is a transitional neighborhood which places a larger requirement on planners to do
a good job, it makes sense to square up and clean up the block to make it consistent with the
zoning. He is concerned with what this neighborhood could become in the future.
Paul moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning to bring the southeast
corner of Block 50 into compliance with the current zoning. Nyle seconded the motion on the
basis we are doing housekeeping and Planning & Zoning will protect residences already there.
Discussion. Paul stated that as this area develops he intends to hold the developers to the line.
All voted aye, none opposed.
Marsha made a motion to keep the Don Harvey property as is recommended by the Planning &
Zoning Commission. Motion was seconded by Nyle. All voted aye, none opposed. Motion
passed.
Clarification of conflict of interests.
#7 - Greg Luce - North Main - 4 and 5th West
Ralph Brian - 450 W. Main
When Ralph purchased his home 15 years ago it was zoned single family dwelling and he
purchased the home under that pretense. He realizes some of these properties have been sitting
5
there vacant for years. He is not against development, he feels the property is a size that could
warrant subdividing and keep single family designation in that area. Everyone is trying to jump
on the college gravy boat and Rexburg is going to become an undesirable place to live if this is
not watched. He is concerned with a young family, the traffic and congestion on Main Street is
bad enough but to throw a multi - family development into that area would be detrimental. He is
extremely opposed to this change.
D. J. Barney - 410 W. ls` North
D. J. owns a portion of this property which is considered a non - conforming use. His grandfather
clause would let him increase the use of this property at will. He cannot go outside the
perimeter of this property but he could expand what he is doing currently. He knows the
neighborhood is opposed to what he does at that property. He is looking at moving his
businesses out of this area and there are certain things that would need to happen first. Would
you rather have multi - family use or a commercial business. If he keeps this property it would be
developed into commercial. This change would allow the property to become a conforming use
allowing the city and neighbors to have more control. The city owes it to the neighborhood to be
stringent as to the zoning level and site plans but feels this change is the right use of the
property.
Testimony closed on this issue.
Marsha pointed out the location of this property and questioned how you could tell someone one
thing and someone across the street something else. There are no apartments from the corner of
Main Street to First North, she feels a discrepancy here. Review of the location and zoning of
the property nearby. Much of this block is in the situation of the zoning taking precedence over
the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion of zoning versus comprehensive plan.
Nyle made a motion to approve Planning & Zoning's recommendation on that property,
seconded by Glen. Discussion.
Marsha made a substitute motion that the homes on the east side of 5 West street not go in with
single family residential and the lots behind them to 4t West go into what has been proposed.
Motion was seconded by Paul. Discussion. Marsha amended her motion to include the homes
which were already zoned medium density. Voting on Marsha' motion as follows:
Paul aye Glen nay
Donna aye
Marsha aye
Shawn aye
Nyle aye
Motion passed.
6
STATE OF IDAHO, )
County of Madison ) SS.
City of Rexburg )
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
May 15, 2002
7:30 P.M.
Present were the following:
Mayor: Bruce Sutherland
Pledge of allegiance.
Council Members:
Excused:
Glen Pond
Shawn Larsen
Marsha Bjornn
Donna Benfield
Paul Pugmire
Nyle Fullmer
City Clerk: Blair D. Kay
Finance Officer: Richard Horner
PFC: John Millar
City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger
Mayor Sutherland welcomed a scout from Scout Troup # 404
Miss Rexburg, was introduced by Von Tracy
The Mayor welcomed both guests to the meeting.
Mayor's Business
The Mayor asked for a motion to appoint Blair Kay as City Clerk for Rexburg.
Donna made a motion to appoint Blair as City Clerk, seconded by Shawn. All voted Aye to
accept the motion. Motion passed
The Mayor asked for a motion to appoint Stephen McGary to the P &Z Commission.
Glen moved to appoint Stephen to the Rexburg City P &Z Commission, seconded by Donna. All
voted Aye to accept the motion. Motion passed
1
The Mayor welcomed Stephen to the Commission stating that `The next few years are going to
be extremely interesting'
The Mayor introduced Kurt Hibbert as the new Rexburg City P &Z Administrator and expressed
a necessity to hire this new position to manage the increased work load the City is experiencing.
Kurt will work with John Millar, the Rexburg City Engineer on P &Z issues.
New Business :
Review Resolution 2002- 3, Intent to create LID 32
Richard Horner - Intent to create LID 32, for $466,000
- Need to set a Public hearing for June 5 @ 8:00 pm
- The intent is present the Resolution 2002 - 3 for discussion
- 187 Properties will be affected with about '/2 being new owners
- New owner section states - LID 32 would be required for new owners
- City will negotiate if necessary
Shawn asked Richard about the esimated cost per property owner - Richard said the cost would
change based on the bid price per foot. The bid price can not be higher than 20% of the
estimated cost. There was discussion on which properties would be affected with LID 32.
Marsha clarified the cost of the project to be $466,000.
Marsha made a motion to send Resolution 2002 -3 to create LID 32 to a hearing with the City
Council, Glen Seconded, All voted Aye. The motion passed.
Public Hearing for Zone change from LDR and MDR to HDR
Greg Luce - Review the location at North Main between 4 and 5 West
The Mayor asked Greg to review the intent of the P &Z Commission on this zone change.
Greg said P &Z's recommendation was to recommend for approval to the City Council.
The Mayor opened the Meeting to a public hearing on the Zone change.
Greg Luce of Homestead Development - Testified concerning four properties
- proposed the new housing was for small families including student families.
- 250 units needed for family housing immediately and 150 per year after this
year per the Housing Needs Assessment Study for the City of Rexburg.
- We are ready to go with Engineering and Financing.
- HUD has made available for 8 or 9 unites home funds subsidies.
- The property description was given as Multifamily called Main Street Station.
2
- The area is moving to HDR development.
- Good neighborhood at 20 units per acre.
- Greg is requesting 1 to 2 bedroom units for 30 units per acre - The difference
between his request for HDR from MDR is 8 to 10 additional units. Less
density will cause higher cost to the renters.
Craig Harney - Craig asked the people to stand if opposed to this project. About 10 people
stood up. John explained the property in question. Craig said MDR should
protect LDR - Craig wished to leave the block MDR.
Shawn asked John, if Craig's property is being changed to HDR in this
proposal?
- There was discussion concerning the sale of the back portion of Craig's
property and the zoning in the area.
Jack Covington - My concern is to keep a barrier between development property and our street.
- We understand that this right of way is only for fire protection.
- We were told to bring this up at the right meeting.
- We are really concerned about traffic in this area.
Mayor said this meeting was for a zone change only - Jack's issues need to be
discussed at the Site Plan Review in P &Z. This particular meeting is to address
the zone change from MDR & LDR1 to HDR. Jack expressed a concern that he
might miss the correct meeting.
Graden Burton - I have had visits with Mr. Luce. He has been very cordial.
- My experience with HDR is that we will not have peace and quiet.
- How high are the buildings? Mayor explained that they will be 2 stories.
- What will be the buffer between complex and our homes? This can be
reviewed with Mr. Luce.
- We have talked to some of our neighbors and they are concerned about getting
low offers to move somewhere else.
Wanna Camphouse
Cristine Beesley
- It concerns my house - right of way was obtained under false pretences
- Mr Barney wanted a piece of my land and that was alright - but I do not
want an apartment next to my place with people running through my place.
Property was sold under a different understanding than it is being developed. I
don't feel secure anymore, I think the zoning should stay as is.
- Two HDR apartments will cause more accidents in the area.
3
Moroni Burton - New comer to the area - we live in a duplex and my question is - how many
acres are in the development? John - I don't have that but I think that it is
between 2 to 3 acres. About 3.75 acres. Moroni - The area is quiet and this
would add about 70 units - 70 cars would change the small town feeling into
something that is big. The understanding is that Rexburg is in need of more
housing. The noise level with people coming and going - High Density
changes market values, property values, It changes too many things for my
plans for a future here. If it does become HDR with apartment buildings, most
people will be looking for somewhere to go to escape and not finding
anywhere to go. High Density will change not only what people do but how
people live.
Cindy Wakefield
- I agree with Moroni - Changing it to HDR would have an unfavorable
impact and I believe that it could be developed with the existing zoning.
- I feel like the P &Z voted for a plan and it is just a plan. They voted to change
it to HDR, but there is no guarantee in the future of what would happen.
- My husband and I gave you all a letter which discussed keeping all of the
existing neighborhoods in balance.
- I am totally against the change to HDR and believe that it could be developed
with the existing zoning.
Mayor Closed the Public Hearing and turned it over to the council for discussion.
Marsha Bjomn discussed the situation of keeping the balance in the City and the inconsistencies
of zoning between 5th West and Main Street. HDR would be too much for the area. I would
vote against the change. Marsha discussed protecting the East side of Stn West like the West side
of 5t West was protected.
Shawn Larsen discussed Mr. Luce statement about needing HDR to make a profit - Shawn would
vote against the change to HDR. He thought MDR would create a better buffer next to a
residential home.
Donna Benfield asked John how would we handle the traffic flow with HDR? John said the
flow would go to approximately mid block on main street. Early discussion indicated that any
access on to 1st North would be very limited. Any access would be restricted to emergency
access. Marsha indicated the need for a traffic light, however John indicated that it would not
come anywhere close to the requirements for a light.
Marsha - Would 8 or 9 units have subsidies? Mr. Luce stated the HUD department would
provide funds to reduce 8 or 9 units to 30% or 40 % of median income for Madison County.
There will be no direct subsidy to the tenant or to the developer. The cost for that unit has been
lowered because they gave us those funds that will allow those families to live at a lower cost.
4
In return, HUD asked us to qualify those tenants to live there. Voucher tenants would be
accepted in those 8 or 9 units. Sixty Eight units are proposed with 8 or 9 units being subsidized.
Marsha - Is there any assurance it will not go to low income? Mr Luce discussed the economics
of keeping the unit costs down to stay competitive for multifamily units. Mr. Luce stated that he
appreciated the neighborhoods concern, `I want to preserve that neighborhood, I have no desire
to do anything, that will hurt that neighborhood'. Mr. Luce stated that he is requesting 20 units
per acre vs 16 units to keep costs down for renters. He needs the 2' access for fire - restricted
access will be his request. We are proposing 68 units Immediately accross the street the City
Council has just zoned a piece of land HDR. Mr. Luce indicated that Main Street is in transition
to a multifamily housing. He stated that main street is not a single family street. He also stated
that a lender can not make loans at the present density restriction. I can not do the development
at MDR. Mr. Luce stated that the numbers don't work for MDR housing. Across the street from
him is HDR, he is asking for equal treatment.
Glen and Mr. Luce discussed the rental price for the units with 60 units vs 68 units.
Glen asked if Mr. Luce knew the Zoning was MDR when he bought the property - It will work
for 2 and 3 bedrooms units. He is changing his occupancy and reducing occupancy because that
is what his market study said this community needs the most and that is what your community
needs, so that is what he is attempting to do.
Glen commented in reviewing P &Z minutes the vote was split. Three against and five in favor
of moving to high density. The only compelling reason that he could see that P &Z acted on was
that the piece of property had sat idle for years with no development or care.
Ted White - 68 units vs 60 units - Ted commented that his vote to change to HDR zoning was
based on adding 8 more units to the existing MDR zoning. He did not feel that it would be that
much more impact to the neighborhood.
Mrs. Burton asked if she would have accesses on both sides of her house? The Mayor said that
there would probably be one on the West of her property. Mr. Luce said that `Between the
property line, we will put a fence up at the property line ". The City has asked that we have a set
back of 20 feet from the property line.
Glen asked John if there would be any area for outside activities or is it mostly pavement with a
little green strip here and there? John - 20% of the property is required to be non hard surfaced
with 80% being developed with either roofs or parking lots. Mr Luce said they would have a Tot
lot and an area for larger children.
Donna made favorable comments on Mr. Luce's other developments in the City.
5
Mr. Luce discussed the density level compared to other developments and his plans to protect
the neighbors.
Glen - How many buildings does 8 units represent? Mr. Luce - One additional building. `My
square footage of what I am allowed to do in MDR is greater than what I am proposing to do in
HDR'.
John Millar stated that the property South of this property is two acres, zoned HDR2 and has 42
units per acre - John reviewed other developments in the area on the overhead map.
Marsha - John, Mr. Luce made the statement that nothing is happening in regards to Multi -
housing. Is that true? John - Pretty much. Since the announcement, One 12 plex has been
completed, another 32 units are nearing completion, and 31 units started construction about two
weeks ago.
Marsha asked John how may units would be allowed in HDR. John - almost a hundred units.
Marsha was concerned that the developer could change the number of units after approval.
Mayor - Confirmed that Mr. Luce has done everything he said he told us he has done in the past.
`I don't suspect that he would ack any differently'.
Mr. Luce - `Councilman Bjornn, I can tell you that my architectural drawings are complete, I can
tell you that engineering is complete, I can tell you that my financing package is done and
approved and committed. That is a huge, huge task. I have been working that since last
November. It's done. I believed that this would not be so difficult, I made a mistake. I know
that if approved and the site plan is approved I will begin construction on June 15 I will tell
you frankly, we are talking about nearly $100,000 worth of work I have had complete. I am not
going to throw that away, and try to build a 100 units of something else that I do not want to
build. I am going to build this, this is the only way I can have it delivered mid - winter'.
Mr. Luce - `I am asking for 8 more units above what it appears everybody is pretty much in
agreement on'. This is what he needs to have to make it feasible.
Marsha - John how high will the building be? - John said it could go to three stories. Both zones
would allow three stories.
Discussion on the height of the building and the number of stories. MDR could allow 3 stories.
This plan is just 2 stories. Others could develop a 3 story project.
Shawn - comment - `If it does pass and goes to HDR, Then the meeting that you need to be to,
another long meeting, would be the P &Z where they review the site plan, where the Planning
and Zoning Commission will then decide exactly what is going to be the gate going on to first
6
North, How high is the fence going to be? That is when the neighbors comments, the P &Z can
look at his site plan and say, OK, we won't approve it unless you do this. So, I would encourage
you either way, if it does get approved, come to Planning and Zoning when the site plan is
reviewed and to make those suggestions'.
Mayor - Discussed the growth issues facing the Community.
Marsha - `With a zoning issue, We can't say that this is restricted to 68 units in this zone ?'
Steve said the site plan meeting could address the issues and concerns of the neighbors.
Concerning voting on the issue, Steve explained that the vote on the zoning changes are based on
the factual analysis of the surrounding area.
Shawn - `I appreciate the debate and the discussion I think he makes a good point, that the
space that is going to be taken up is actually less than the space that could be taken up under
MDR, under his plan for 68 units, so as will be noted in the minutes, I have first apposed this but
now I believe that I am going to support the request'.
Shawn - Made a motion to accept P &Z's recommendation to change the property to HDR.
Glen - Seconded the motion.
Mayor - It has been moved and seconded, any discussion.
All in favor - All voted Aye except Marsha who voted Nay
Mr. Luce will address neighbor issues ASAP.
Steve - John will provide copy of site plans to neighbors on a list that they will sign.
Ohlson Lavoie Corp. - Report on Rexburg Recreational Center Study
Mr Mushgrave gave the report:
We are looking for sites for a Community Center
Recreation Committee has done a lot of wonderful work
We have moved our first meeting to a date good for the public next Wednesday
Mayor - Questions we have needed to answer.
1) Costs?
2) Venues?
3) Are there any questions from the council?
Marsha Bjornn - Would exercise equipment be included? Mr Mushgrave explained that the City
may choose to have exercise equipment or some other method of generating revenue to make
7
FINDINGS OF FACT
FOR
ZONE CHANGE
1. On November 19, 2001, Greg Luce presented to the Rexburg City Clerk a Request and
Application for Zone Change on property located north of West Main between 4 and 5
West, in the City of Rexburg, said property to be changed from Low Density Residential
(LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR).
2. Said request for zone change was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. On
February 13, 2002, Greg Luce appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission for
the City of Rexburg requesting the Comprehensive Plan be changed on the above
mentioned property to multi - family. It was recommended by Planning & Zoning that this
matter be sent to City Council for public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan to change
this area to multi - family, leaving the homes on 5 West and 1' North that are already
single family as single family.
3. On March 14, 2002, Greg Luce appeared before the City Council for the City of Rexburg
requesting the Comprehensive Plan be changed on the above mentioned property to multi -
- family. It was approved by the City Council to change this area to multi - family excluding
the homes on the east side of 5 West which will be left as single family.
4. On March 18, 2002, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing for a public hearing
before the Planning & Zoning Commission on April 10, 2002, for publication in the local
newspaper on March 22 and April 3, 2002, posted a notice on the property and sent
notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property.
5. On April 10, 2002, Greg Luce appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission for the
City of Rexburg requesting a zone change on the above mentioned property from Low
Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density
Residential (HDR). There was opposition to this zone change request from neighbors with
regards to overloading this area with apartments and increased traffic It was
recommended by Planning & Zoning that this request be approved for public hearing
before the City Council.
6. On April 17, 2002, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing before the City
Council on May 15, 2002, for publication in the local newspaper, posted a notice on the
property and sent notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned
property.
2. On May 15, 2002, Greg Luce appeared before the City Council of the City of Rexburg
requesting a zone change on the above mentioned property from Low Density Residential
(LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR).
There were comments from the public with regards to increased traffic, safety, future
roads, size of buildings and number of units being built. A motion was made to take the
recommendation of Planning & Zoning and approve the requested zone change. Three
members voted aye. One opposed. Motion carried.
Stephe Zollinger, City Atto
la. SUBDIVISON
a. Block
b. Lot
lb. CITY BLOCK'
a. Lot
CITY OF REXBURG ADDRESS FORM
(Choose either la or lb)
Date: 5-- 2 7 7,02,
Filled out by: /4 & 7n
�,q�T Ors L° Ts L-4.3/
2. ASSIGNED ADDRESS
g? 11 -' AMIN s71-6
3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
f�t� s77 ST��� o.ift �P7S
la. SUBDIVISON
a. Block
b. Lot
1 b. CITY BLOCK'
a. Lot
2. ASSIGNED ADDRESS
CITY OF REXBURG ADDRESS FORM
(Choose either la or lb)
Date: .0 2 2-
Filled out by: 4e.v epp,5 reW
ze e
10 z/ 3 27
g3e GJ roily ST
3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
MA // S 2 » tr/
Idaho Housing
and Finance
ASSOCIATION
November 14, 2001
City of Rexberg
Planning and Zoning Dept.
12 N. Center
Rexberg, ID 83440
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for Main Street Station
Homestead Hope has applied for federal HOME funds, which are administered by
the Idaho Housing and Finance Association (IHFA). Funds may be reserved for
this project and may be committed after the federally mandated Environmental
Assessment has been completed.
A map of the proposed project site has been included for your convenience.
In compliance with Federal Regulations, we must ensure that the proposed project
is not likely to adversely effect the social or physical environment on a permanent
basis. To assist us in our Environmental Assessment, we would appreciate it if
you would complete the enclosed checklist. A response no later than November
30, 2001 would be sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please
contact me at (208) 331 -4759.
Thank you,
Applicant: Homestead Hope
Contact: Julie Hyatt
Project Description: 68 Multi - Family Units
Project Location:
ralyn DiLaura
onstruction Coordinator
Enclosures: Map
Checklist
450 W. Main
Rexberg, ID
P.O. Box 7899
(565 W. Myrtle Street)
Boise, Idaho 83707 -1899
208 - 331 -4882
Fax 208 - 331 -4802
www.ihfa.org
TDD 800 -545 -1833 Ext. 400
NYAI
OIIWNtlR
WHOM
PROJECT: Homestead Hope
City Checklist
1. Are there any proposed and planned street improvement
projects, airport expansions, etc., which would increase site noise levels?
O Yes No Comments:
2. Will transportation facilities and services be adequate to meet the
needs of the projects
Yes O No Comments:
3. Is any part of the site known or suspected to contain archaeological resources?
O Yes No Comments:
4. Has any part of the site been identified as potentially a jurisdictional wetland by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Local Planning Department?
O Yes ykNo Comments:
5. Is the project located on a 100 -year flood plain? FEMA Map No.
O Yes g No Comments:
6. Will the project convert prime farmland to residential use?
O Yes I21No Comments:
7. Is the project located within an airport clear /hazard zone?
O Yes O No Comments:
8. Are there any unique natural features on or adjacent to the site?
O Yes 14 No Comments:
&,o &SCDOzO D
JwN c 3, '511
Compatibility with Surrounding Development
9. Is the proposed project consistent with the community comprehensive plan and
zoning requirements?
O Yes No Comments: 2onn c.Hp0.1 15. r s r�C: q c,c1,Zt - / �'`
I�l �4s tic =c= tit �T: w e- S;er3 .
10. Project is zoned ill c=i Dc_9■1s (Ty R .
Which allows: A PA2'r -ry) E t..ur C o km j L. K 5 c.c.p 7 A- Pe' J s, T '
(D E=- / to (LN I TS r'c= /L i4 c i=
Air Quality
11. Does the project require an installation permit or operating permit under local
air pollution regulations?
O Yes It No Comments:
12. Is the project located in the vicinity where air quality violations have been
registered?
O Yes 1X No Comments:
Site Accessibility
13. Does the site have legal access to a dedicated public street?
Yes O No Comments:
14. Are there any barriers to emergency vehicle access?
0 Yes J No Comments:
Public Safety
15. Does the project location provide adequate access for police, fire and
emergency medical services?
24 Yes 0 No Comments:
16. Are police and fire protection services available, & adequate to meet the
project needs?
cgi Yes 0 No Comments:
17. Will the project create a burden on existing facilities in terms of manpower
and /or equipment?
0 Yes No Comments:
18. Is a public sewer system available at the site?
71 Yes O No Comments:
Who owns /operates the system?
o ,o; i-c/2.4 , To.
Sewer and Water Supply
18. Can the existing or proposed sewer system adequately service the proposed
development? IFS
20. Is public water available at the site?
Yes 0 No Comments:
Water Supplier C , er)F i1 �. > �G
21. Can the existing or planned water system adequately service the proposed
development? L{c.= s
Storm Water
22. Is public storm sewer available at the site?
7 Yes O No Comments:
23. If so, is this a combined waste /storm sewer?
OYes 0 No Comments:
26. If public storm sewer is not available, how will storm water drainage be
handled? N/tA
27. Will the project itself cause or substantially contribute to off site pollution by
storm water, run off, leaching of chemicals, or other pollutants?
O Yes 0 No Comments:
Solid Waste
28. Is garbage collection available? % Yes
Is it provided by: O commercial service
Comments:
29. Where does the community dispose of its waste? tie FFc=Yts orti,/ C z .
L, FLT
30. Will the project become a burden on existing landfill capacity?
O Yes 0 No Comments:
Completed by:
G : \Geralyn\Environmental \LTR City.doc
CL r)?;IP'c'"—
Si 9 na ure
Title
Date
0 f 1 \ tk u9yL
Printed Name
P((A. t3c_ l C—
O No
k_ft) vLtL -S Dos L c- - o/
►� c. ( 2 0 0
1 local government?
1000 S
c.
190 S
!
1
I
i I
i
8
• : 930 Si
•
1000 S
I I .,; , ■ ,,"
. .,..
:::, '
t
-.. .
;t.
5
isrsnd Madison
/
' 2CCO S
•
Valley River ( . 1 )
Rd 1.14
•
Airport
....! . : 12 or • = Madison : W3ectiN St . ..... : C
cc;
County 77-6-,. ----- ,- 5
!Fairgrounds '
, w2ndNst i--, 7-, • - 4
---
:
smerwoo ,-, ---
Dr
---'----- ' - '1 .--- .Z
! i .
.1 . . ,
. Suji5 :sr /V;S . U " E 1 N St
. - 1 .4.,. -1 =1; - ....
y: ..1-,..,, ,c
,i
W MainiSt
Kennedy ES •
S Gemini Dr
Taury.Lj
k Pant St
Sun_riE
Or
CI) ‘ni
t; -%
z z
, .
•
, . .. , ..:c ..
-____;....._ ._ Learning - : -/
:,,. rerra vista .
,.• 4 • - .- . ..'crl
i.... -......__—___..{
.7 E 1..; 1 ..... Center . -. :r.no . • 3
•i (7).: W'Sth S St ; A ; cN 1: -_______-____s_.. 11.1 !.c
..,
. . ; ESItri i 9.
:Y1 (4, (75
i lcn 1.1.1
: 1.
• ' (Ili . : (ii
• 2 . .
Armork cn
`.1adiscn ' 0 I 71: S St
.•.1S :
(7 7
.1.
VI/t3rclS St el)
. E S SI! • i
cn,Bare St
.;
;p• W St (f) 6)7
Ist S St
:Porteli
Park
W 2nclIS St
Ricks.f4'
College: se
Alternative
N
•
•
. .
Madisizin •
JHS
city redster
CI Hal! . iE Maid St a
• -.„„ r
) e
CartsonAy :
' /Wade Madison Memorial
Post ' •
Office
Crest View Dr
61 -
cz! - •
e•
' =
a;
Sunnse Or I
a ;
o c.
\
1.•
•C:
m V .
to LIS 'W.
3 Sugar City
Lorene St
E 4117 N Si
E ?ow N
Ci
. ,...,• Z
waikerja_
rn ,.......- . . a Z ..c. ..._, .... 1...„.... _. - — . . . Bel
- .
Baey OaiDc---"- „, ■13ZaTeri,"Fr 7
i
Rd
zi
...-:
:-;;nId e• !ZIG ; ',-- i
41 E 2nclN St < 1 i - rr l3 L _ 1 Nfna Or L
; c _Trra.z.r
li .11' ;HsT.r..---...'0.0fet
sant LAunei -; .:
Adams! ES Z; 11 `, - '
asett i. ..>
ks ::.:
Ay;7;: :0,'".,.,. ......i i
Courthouse / 7
''"' . -3 ..4
Etst 3 St - 1
E2nd S St !Cil
L. ' 3•7
I ' -
Zs esi
c r) s iv) ; uommenotoetAv
v ou •
14; IRott Hi Dr't
E 4-th
Rexburg
I:A(1LE EYE 34APS
Mot all streets are shown on
maps or Isted in street
guides. Cor.stzuction of
streets and roads may be in
/ogress In certain areas.
DATE:
TO: NAME:
COMPANY:
FAX #:
PHONE #:
FROM: NAME:
CITY OF REXBURG
P 0 BOX 280
REXBURG, IDAHO 83440
FAX # (208) 359 -3022
PHONE # (208) 359 -3020
Additional message:
STATE OF IDAHO
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
/2 -oar -O I
( C IZA- L 'kj D Ext2A-
1 -z 3 y 80
J o µ fit, M 11.1. &
Please forward this fax transmittal to the above named individual.
THIS IS PAGE 1 OF PAGES
PO Box 280
-12 North Center Street- -
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020
Fax (208) 359 -3022
e -mail rexburg @srv.net
omestead
December 12, 2001
City of Rexburg
New Construction
12 N. Center
Rexburg, ID 83440
Re: Service in Rexburg — Water, Sewer, Garbage
Located at 450 West Main
To Whom It May Concern:
We are going to build a new apartment complex called the Main Street Station
Apartments (68) units and would like you to send us a "Will Serve" letter for the water,
sewer and garbage sanitation since you are the provider in that area. We would
appreciate your assistance; if you need additional information please let us know.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you
Sincerely,
1277 shoreline ln. boise, idaho 83702
(208) 343 -8645 fax (208) 345 -8990
1000 S
/ To 3t. 4r7thon
iI
,..;i 1
575 N I Rexbiii% g-
5Ni Madtion Nki7:.;r
:_cOttilty P al* Valley River c
UJ
Airport
f; Madison W
z: Dr
County c :
Fairgrounds
W 2nd I St =.11
.3ace
.1.:47Ction
•••■•"!3
190.5
Suihmerwoo D S r
?eatrurr.1
cloi o' z i Li,
---.......... — z
W Main;St
Kennedy ES
p =Gemini Dr ■:
z. • • ' ....4s_Virtlst S Sti
; Park St
c.Ni Sunrist '. ,
(0 Ct;
, Dr
• /
3z
D.R.
I Sub z
iw 1st Nist Li. E 1V N St
cetv
. Z :Salem
Madison Hall !Ay
.St
' 11-1 S 3 iE Mairi St
IN
Porter;
U? ...., =...' W2nOS St -. ,..-..::., .:•.?;5171;
- • _ u„, ::: . =
.C.1£ CI: :
A . wf3rri:s st 1c75
i
;:,..:: .••.•,•:•. „,.... :,,:: c.); ;
; „ ---- rt
1-.4"tt... i I ioks
- 5
i cr z I c!ke -- rd o ite g i.:::,:.:::::.::::::1
z rii
''' . ' :''
, ............... , .........4.—........-......a............,-„...............,.............:.......:—...,.
.....- i W 4thS St c n eiV • _• • • • i Alternative •i
i'li' 3 ':,........ Learning
1
; .
;
............— l'" 'l Center .!
11 /. c ..- 6.' ; ; W S St 14 •: -.------- , ,,,....w:..k. =,,..
0)
i 4
; 1. 1 !cn i
w ...,,
, .3 ‘C
•33...
WM? S'..St ul
"tz=
;l930 S
/ ,
' tSii
H =---,
loco s ./ m a ::Arrnori____
1 4\ ..,, Ma . W7thSS1
1
• .* `
I
,
;;
1,
• .,.
1 = ==.
= ,: .. 1
<
R ,
01 =
To US 20.
Sugar City
Lorene St
E 1000 N
4 ;
Cason'
EAGLE EE MAPS
E ath wall(a4
NSt
,--
Barnet; Dfl..04-'
Rd 7 :•!='7 ../..b ,'.71, ',
i.u;E 2nd N SI ,,t cc 01:- cn 1 ,
cr)=.
a i 1, :gr " HS;
, 4 , < _„. 01 a tsoni : I -:
—Ina ..-.•.-
Adams ES Z■ Is ' 7 aitieoei
3 343
lefts/444 7F:frith .a.c.-L,1111-';!?i°144t77-4....„
Courthouse, /
- maple Madison Memorial
C.5
Elst 3 St Itrjrcli
Post :
3 E S St .•.:(
Lie:coin L)i
Crest Wew Dr
CS1
Ic
. 1
Sunris
; 1/4
.1: ci
il
;
•=, •
3rciS Sti il ll Ni
1 ,. .1 i Commanchei ,=,
mi: tri 1-
Roililmg Hilts Dr '.
mi .----.---- * - -ilat
Zt E 4thSSt
-= N. .74 .
, ,..a =
—...........—_,..... ....
E 5thIS 37 Lz.
i . \
-,,
Rexburg
Not all streets are shown on
maps or listed in street
guides. Construction of
streets and roads may be in
progress in certain areas.
Ho
omestead
November 15, 2001
Marilyn Wasden
City Clerk
City of Rexburg Idaho
12 North Center Street
Rexburg ID 83440
Re: Main Street Station
Dear Ms. Wasden,
Enclosed please find a check and an application for plan change and zoning for Main
Street Station. I am also enclosing 8 1/2 X 11 drawings of our proposal. Please advise if
the planning commission or staff need anything further. Also advise the time and date for
the meeting.
Thank You
Greg Luce
/
1277 shoreline ln. boise, idaho 83702
(208) 343 -8645 fax (208) 345 -8990
• t
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
900 North Skyline, Suite B • Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 -1718 • (208) 528 -2650 Dirk Kempthorne, Governor
C. Stephen Allred, Director
November 27, 2001
Idaho Housing and Finance Association
Attn: Geralyn DiLaura
P.O. Box 7899
Boise, ID 83707 —1899
Fax #: (208) 331— 4802
Re: Main Street Station Planned Unit Development Comments,
to the City of Rexburg, Madison County;
DEQ #: 01 -08 -33
Dear Geralyn:
We, at the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), have comments for the
proposed Main Street Station. The plat is incomplete and does not appear to meet state
standards, and we recommend the following:
1. Prior to field implementation, a complete set of stamped- engineered plans and
specifications for the proposed Main Street Station must be submitted to this office
for approval. We will require submittal of the applicable DEQ checklists with the
submittal of plans. If the Project Engineer, registered with the State of Idaho, does
not have these checklists, please do not hesitate to call this office at the number
below, such that we, at the DEQ, can supply you with them.
2. Considering the scope of the area, implementation of the State of Idaho's Best
Management Practices for Storm Water is strongly encouraged. If you need this
document, please contact this office at the number below, such that we can supply
you with it.
3. Prior to field implementation, this office must receive will -serve letters from the City
of Rexburg's Water and Wastewater Systems for the increased load and demand.
A copy of the preliminary plats will be kept on file at this office. Please reference DEQ
#: 01 - 08 - 33 when submitting any future correspondence related to this project. If you
have any questions regarding this letter or if we can be of any further assistance, please
call me at (208) 528 -2650.
Sincer y,
yan rbanec,
Water Quality Engineer,
DEQ -IFRO
1
Cc: Greg Eager, P.E., Regional Engineering Manager, DEQ -IFRO;
John Millar, P.E., City of Rexburg — Eng. Dept., P.O. Box 280, Rexburg ID 83440;
Homestead Hope, Attn: Julie Hyatt, 1277 Shoreline Lane, Boise, ID 83702;
Richard Horne, D7HD — IFRO;
File;
Homestead Const.
1277 Shoreline Drive
Boise, Idaho
83702
Re: Main Street Station
Dear Julie;
erely,
hn W. Millar P.E./L.S.
ublic Facilities Coordinator
STATE OF IDAHO
www.ci.rexburg.id.us
11°
P.O. Box 280
12 North Center Street
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020
Fax (208) 359 -3022
e -mail rexburg @ci.rexburg.id.us
December 26, 2001
We have reviewed the plans and overall development proposed for the Main Street Station
development and have determined that the city has adequate capacity in our water system,
wastewater system, and sanitation facilities to meet the demands resulting from the development
of this housing development. The developer will be paying connection fees that will be used for the
expansion of our systems capacities.
If you have questions or need further information please contact me at any time.
May 14, 2002
Greg Eager, PE
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
900 North Skyline Drive
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 -1718
Re: "Will Serve Letter" for Rexburg Main Street Station Development
Dear Greg:
This letter will certify that the City of Rexburg will provide municipal water, sewer, and storm
drainage service to the proposed development located in the area bounded by Main Street, 5
West, 1s North, 4 West. Our systems have adequate capacity to meet the needs for this new
development.
This letter is being provided to the developer in support of their request to have utility plans
approved by your Agency. Please call me at 359 -3020 ext 329 if you have any questions.
Thank you for your support of this project.
Sincerely,
f exburg
ohn W. Millar, P
ity Engineer /Pub is Works Director
mir
cc: The Dyer Group, LLC
Homestead Companies, LLC
STATE OF IDAHO
P.O. Box 280
12 North Center Street
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020
Fax (208) 359 -3022
e -mail rexburg @srv.net
Rich Andrus
25 North 2 East
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
Dear Rich:
CITY OF
AMERICA'S FAMILY COMMUNITY 15 E. Main (PO Box 280)
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
www. rexbu rq.orq
July 14, 2004
Re: Camphouse /Homestead Properties Easement
Phone: 208 - 359 -3020 x316
Fax: 208- 359 -3022
stephenz @ci.rexburg.id.us
As we discussed on the phone yesterday, there seems to have been some
misunderstandings between the City Police Department and the Camphouse family. During the
past several days, the Rexburg Police Department, in an effort to assist in maintaining the
peace in this particular matter, placed locks upon several gates which cross the easement in
question. After having been advised of the nature of the dispute, it was determined that police
action was unnecessary, and that accordingly, we should remove our locks from the gates.
As I stated, I believe this matter should be resolved in a civil setting, and that as far as the
Rexburg Police Department is concerned, they will only respond in order to assist in maintaining
the peace, or pursuant to a specific court order.
I hope that the parties will be able to work this out between themselves, and I wish you the
best in helping them to do so.
cc: Main Street Station File
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Zollinger
Rexburg City Attorney
.,X1 UHG MA HO
SHEET ONDEX:
TITLE SHEET
SITE
UNIT PLANS
BUILDING PLANS
BUILDING PLANS
ELEVATI! NS
ELEVATIONS
8 BLD'GS
1 BLD'G
PARKING 120 CARS:
1L-
BUILDING AND UNIT COUNT
BLDG 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 BDRM
32 32 0
0 0 4
TOTALS 32 32 4
9 BUILDINGS W/ A TOTAL OF 68 UNITS
PLUS COMMUNITY BUILDING
32 ONE BEDROOM AREA OF 592 SQ FT
32 TWO BEDROOM AREA OF 820 SQ FT
4 THREE BEDROOM AREA OF 1,030 SQ FT
COMMUNITY BLD'G AREA OF 1,338 SQ FT
(THE ABOVE INCLUDES 4 ACESSABLE UNITS)
NOTE:
ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE 'FEDERAL REGISTER'
PART VI OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY - 24 CFR CHAPTER 1 - FINAL FAIR HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY
GUIDELINES DATED WED. MARCH 6, 1991.
OWNER:
IMAfi N STREET EET STATOOO N
1277 SHORE LONE LANE
[8000SE, ODA O 83702
(208) 343-8845
A° RCHDTECCT:
WOLSON ARCHOTECTURAL
1403 BROADWAY
o DOSE, OD HO 83706
(208) 3344 -1000
SITE PIJ. SCALE 1
Mb 1•5
ffi
•
MINIM Ell IN WM= MI 1•111•IM
FRONT ELEVATION - ONE AND TWO BR SCALE: 114' =1' -0'
-7/
LEFT ELEVATION - ONE AND TWO BR SCALE: Ur.r -
%%
94
v
""' 11111 1111
VII Ft( -
ijjjjJjllIII H ill
III III I " "' " "
F rd
914
%%
74
REAR ELEVATION - ONE AND TWO ER SCALE: 1/4'x1'-0'
gy
%%
RIGHT ELEVATION - ONE AND TWO BR SCALE: 1/4'•1'-0"
%%
Pr/
•d
Fax
Name: [Val Christensen]
Organization: [City of Rexburg]
Fax: 208 359 3022
Phone: [208 359 3020]
From: [Tom M. Wilson]
Date: 2/17/02
Subject: Addencum
Pages: 9
Comments: Dear Val,
Please find attached Addendum no one A which includes the rvision on the foundation wall and
the contractors request to move the supply registers in the heating system to the crawl space on
the first floor only.]
Ce, �'cc: u�z G^ I - 'O (c
i -u. t_. 4
I!lilW� ° AV Ij L.'..i= i3___i_- i _,' "`'1. �_
a:£s \
` Y
EOOL .17'E
1d21I11031IH0ad IJOS1If dSS =ZO ZO LT
unr
a•
FROM THE OFFICE OF:
Wilson Architectural
1403 Broadway
Boise, ID 83706
NOTICE TO ALL BIDDERS:
APPLICABLE TO PLANS:
ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE A
JUNE 17, 2002
ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE A
PAGE 1
RE: PROJECT NO: 01 -803
MAIN STREET STATION
REXBURG, IDAHO
You are hereby notified of the following changes to the drawings and specifications
for the above referenced project, which changes you shall be required to consider in
the preparation of your bid.
This ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE A is hereby made a part of the Project
Requirements and Contract Documents for the referenced project. Be sure to
acknowledge this Addendum in your Bid Proposal Form.
Item #1:
PLEASE REVISE ALL FOUNDATION WALL REINFROCING TO THE DETAIL
SHOWN ON SHEET A -1 ATTACHED HERE TO.
Item # 2:
PLEASE RELOCATE ALL REGISTERS ON THE FIRST F FROM THE
CEILING TO THE FLOOR WITH THE DUCTS IN THE CRAWL SPACE AS SHOWN
ON SHEETS #A -22, A -22a, A -23, - A -23a, A -24, A -28.
End of ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE A, as prepared by:
Tom M. Wilson
Wilson Architectural
EOZL fbt►E
1II1 ctiri , _ sV!
1d21l1031I H0HEI NOS1I f9 dSS :20 ZO L I unr
TYP. FND WALL
2 "X8" TREATED PL. W/
518 "X10" AB'S 4'- 0 "O.C.
ON AS REQ'D L
#4 CONT. TOP
MIDDLE, &BOTTOM
OF FND WALL
2" 'BLUE BOARD'
R1DGID 1NSUL
ON FND WALL.
#4 VERT. DOWELS
AL BENDS
SCALE: 3/4" = 1' -0"
MAIN STREET STATION
REXgLJ 1 Coik C
E •d E02t tr E
ADDENDUM #1
PROJECT: 01 -803
REV. DATE: 06/13/02
1di•1f11031IH02Jd N0S1If9 dSS:Z0 20 LI unr
NOTE: HVAC RUNS TO BE
RUN 1N ATTIC AT 2ND FL &
RUN IN 1ST FL (TYPICA EXCEPT
AS NOTED)
COOL .171-E
HEATING PLAIN
MAIN STREET STATION
IKEXB RIM , !IDAHO
ADDENQtJM 111
PROJECT: 01.803
REV. DATE: 06,13t02
1dNf11031IH3 JEJ IJOSlIf
100 CFM
4X10 FD
ONE BDRM UNIT - FIRST FLOOR 606 S • FT
• PROF
•
d9S: 0 ZD LT unr
S• d
50 CFM
4X10 FD
NOTE: HVAC RUNS TO BE
RUN IN ATTIC AT 2ND FL
RUN IN CRAWL SPACE AT
1ST FL. (TYPICAL EXCEPT
AS NOTED)
EO21. t►t•E
T 100 CFM
4X10 FD
HEATING PLAN
•
4X10 FD
150 CFM
4X10 FD
MAIN STREET STATION
R EXEt IJ RG, 1IAHO
ADDENDUM #1
PROJECT: 01 -803
REV. DATE: 06/13/02
4X10 CFM
50 CFM
4X10 FD
ONE BDRM HC UNIT - FIRST FL ONLY 66 Q FT
� i-o PRO
o
s 4 452
�O ,
O F s 0
S
1u Jf1J_03J_ I HOad NOSH r 01 9S:20 20 L I unr
50 CFM
4X10 FD
NOTE: HVAC RUNS TO BE
RUN IN ATTIC AT 2ND FL &
RUN IN CRAWL SPACE AT
1ST FL (TYPICAL EXCEPT
AS NOTED)
9 'd EOZL bi'E
MAIN STREET STATION
REXB1 F2G, 1 CPA H0
ADDENDUM #1
PROJECT: 01 -803
REV. DATE: 06/13/02
J4X10 150 CFM
FD
T50 CFM
X10 FD
TWO BDRM UNIT - FIRST FLOOR 834 SQ FT
N.T.S
HEATING PLAN
100 CFM
4X10 FD
H
1 <
1d2ff11031IH021d WOS1If'1 d9S :00 ZO LT unr
NOTE: HVAC RUNS TO BE
RUN IN ATTIC AT 2ND FL &
RUN IN CRAWL SPACE AT
1ST FL. (TYPICAL EXCEPT
AS NOTED)
L 'd
50 CFM
4X10 FD
EOEL il7E
HEATING PLAN
ADDENDUM #1
PROJECT: 01 -803
REV. DATE: 06/13/02
DESK
TOP
150 CFM
4X10 FD
FL )C LJ G , I BA H O
T50 CFM
X10 FD
U
c
Q
0
0
MAIN STREET STATION
100 CFM
4X10 FD
TWO BDRM HC UNIT - FIRST FLOOR 834 SQ FT
N.T.S.
l<
A -23a
' 50 CFM 1
4X10 FD 1
11:18111331 I HDbd NOS1I n 4 9S:20 20 / j unr
100 CF
al(lO FO
100 CF►S
g t 0F0
6 ;r0 FN
ax10 F0
SHOP
IOTCNEN
8d E02L • E
100 CFA
axlo L0
cOMIWUNITY AREA
CLUB HOUSE 1254 SQ FT
N.T.S
LAUNDRY
HEATING PLAN
MAIN STREET STATION
}ZEXBURG, 1DA'4c
AaDENL UM s1
PROJECT_ 01 -803
REV. DATE. 08/13002
t00 CFA
ntoc0 EI
A -28
1 NOTE: N CRAWL SSPPATE. @E 1
1d21f11331 I H021d NOSH n dLS = z0 ZO L i UDC
99
T-63
9074
JENSEN TERRY LA
0297
B150P538
268538
100
9020
OLSEN ROGEF ETUX
175427
#1001
162650
162652
163913
273777
100
T-47
125
9486
BARNEY DI )UGLAS K
78
E
50.5
RASMUSSE
1
330
9026
PEAR TREE ENTEDR RES
278577
231845
TOLL JACQUELINE JENSEN
7 209 TT06
267085 268540
256887
9080
TOLL JACQUELINE JENSE
)CHO 2 02P126
130011
231622
235539
256854
256855
9002 T-103, 7
HOWARD BUD
8181 P47
(/)
w
259475
259476 wis
268539
205
9121 Tin
MCCULLOCH MARY W
148474 4
264410
264511
230
ism T 12
PARKINSON CLINTON D
201604
272893 °
9180
PARKINSON CAM
220
27 96
330
•_ 130.5 •T-71 '703
QQ'2'J 9249
PARKIN$55 W ILMA PARKINSON'rVI A
162650 'ARKINSON WILMA
162652
217599
2431 -, 243118
17 m 272894
27377 273777
T
ON C
T-85
9243
T-334 T-1 0 9244 T-86
PARKINS CLI O D ETUX 9 0 . , PARKINSON WILMA
286725 220447
38
'SMITH ,T E ETUX 243117
23 94x59 272895
28275 273777
131.5
250 9313 T--72
PAUL ARTHUR JOSEPH
220405
330 9361 T -17,50
NELSON STUART
126920
216193
9409 T -48
WALKER MARTY D ETUX
213935
270055
247900
938
9457 T-28
ME SSICK GEORGE J ETUX
243798
261812 8190 P198
264041 224548
9481 T
WAKEFIELD LYLE K ETUX
T
272897 4741
270\ PETERSON 5598
9515
ENCER JILL
215782
274729
9506
H CHARLES S
198277
213268
213269
180
11, 716: T U
)006 0005 0 9 054 00 1'
5p'DAVIS PA IICIA
NANCY
JOHNSIN SHANE ETUX
133421 16521
- 1
� - IAf 1 T
T-147
E ETUX
13
ENNEDY 0100
49 5
0950
GUMKE DAVID M ETUX
272850
241088
182917 _-
L
26238
030
5490
PETERSON RAY(
274236
274617 0 '
227278
w T-92
2340
PRICE THOMAS H
196195
Ta7
3020
HERRERA MICHAEL J ETUX
2_1183
257701
285488
1351550N MICHAEL
4201
252537
257184
41i
1214
PETERSON LEGA PROP. LLC
279078
279077
1231
BEE LEY 7861 1 NE A "
273177 1850
X7947]. CAMPHOIJSE K
127
1870
127
1219
JOOLP STEVEN E \.
218071
254082 CAMPHOUSE KE
254082 ;
es T3
3050
ROWI1ERRY IRMAC
164293
EF TIES LLC
SEARCY 8
2782
279642
UNS2
EST 5ADIjQ�.�TRUCTION IN
Lot 2
0160
PHOUSE KER
T-6
q� P A c ETUX T 2952
Lot V UTIE RRE2 JARED 9 =N� 5
�4
266361 238440
252579 4850
256 1 3 4501 : STANLEY L El JX
255581
T -15
718 T40 2955
3011 3750 wcH ILLS JOHNA E11/0 e0686 6568 : 500749TON JACK B 7_11
= 230811 296.0
COV:'NGTON JACK E ETUX
238431.
T-4
N
W MOR _57STAN MORTGAGESORP-
..606505 R06Ei:17 L
6 T-8
83276 4740
JOHNS 7N JOHN KENDALL BMX
223683
247727
)4AN,JI V CRAIG ETUX
266059
258491
114 253720
0191 224725
252900
Lot 2
Lot 1
Er 601101t,121491/1
0141
T -115
2555 1
j� WI0 )ISON ETUX TOO KIN�3TOI� 8 5166 ESTA
t" 00,-,901
RY LESPER
88
KILGTON NAOMIB
• '
811':9005 8.4880 L
202
4 01 1 30 0100
NH ,ERGUSON AND CO E LAL
HERBST HERBST DALE KEN ETU %ETC: - ;;;;;474
z+ii5i s
248239 ,
a=
40
4 FUNK
.
EE \pJ EEC IuAR LYN E•
Lot
0060<
0
WHITWORTH LARETTA B
Lot 6,104
119
T_13
2290
SEELEY DWAYNE
4840
ROWBURY IURDELL ) ETUX
25384 T6
4830
ROWBU .IY BURDELL0
238089
253844
253843
RTIES LLC
Lot 1
Lot 3 V Lot 4
Tao
1450
MADISON PARK LTD PART
206908
79
2891
BARNEY DELL RAY
142198
252330
252625
T -33
0042
HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES LLC
176748
272943
274121
280660
280661
T42
2890
R 608610 IN 0ERP 115ES IN0.7_1
278023 2890
278025
278026 NI REXBURG LLC
278028 219407
378029 278023
278030 278025
278031 278026
278032 278033
278033 278034
278034 278035
278035 278028
278029
278030
278031
278031
292532
T-24
4600
ON AGRAYDON E3UXTA
ON A GRAYDON 5 EATRICIA
167246
260807
T37
0010
COVINGTON TERRY K.
227808
251975
262641
274142 A
0010
CLAIR 8 DEE'S OK TIRE STORE
T�5
2890
BEARDALL GARNET
139418
T_14
4480
WOOD NEIL G ETUX
227832
255325
319459
V)
_C
0812
48
0230
z575s1'
tab
1191
DUNN GENE L
3
Lot
4780
LEWIS RANDY A ETJX
206445
287367 66TTERS
292573
2
5 FADDEN KEVIN 54 f 1X
23^
253048
264731
264968
2 T{
1620
668651)5 DAVE
229139
3040
0050 4
LL(U L".4F3 l�lf5TY E -DX t n I P"ETIJk
Vl�1�q + S
q j + TF N 7274922
T -13
4980
SMITH GARRY ETUX
233391 SMITH
28141
UN TR
,SIN STR ON
281363
220604
268709
T -2 25
) 3 , A
1200
0028
BRYANT PETRONELLA
Mlckelsen
Michell D.
P212
BERGENER TQDDW ET'IX
257 460 0201
PE( '0 ETLX
257607
0193
3ROWN RANOOLENE6
130327
251940
253219E
0220
B LACK GORDON J.
253493
2 0 2320
BLACK GO D ON J : ARREDON0(1 51
15 8 168436 272328
5a 3 i 54>
Al AM
3.ivV
3340 ( HART KENNE 1 .. ore
2
JNGTON VIRGINI , 1
41004
257068
T-49 1 T-71
T -48 4730
60 MONK KELLY WA
NOLA 4 ETUX 237595
234 275955
307 z2 279953
306
1t, 75
0210 = 0190
)2 53641 313
o w
5
231
Lot 1
Lot 3
T4
1611
PEARSON EILA
419 22913_
091
GU!:1K
EPSON R
Lot
IE RSON
RANI
0
01
BE■
Lc
002A
BRYANT PETRI
t 2 255597
13
00
GRESLII
0040 0050 0
DAVIS SHERREL MUNOZ JOSE S E X LOY1,
174444 206109
606
0140
213481
)50
'50
240
24013
35348
T- 87
0015
35989
36127
132
55
ROAD
0 Il 0030
OKER DLUKE
257520
Lot 3
1.
Lot 16
110
0020
HASTINGS JERRY
TUX 261511
Lot 2
0160
ENDER5ON DARRELL A
146387
0170
LEISHMAN TERRY W
Lot 17
X�140 �1�
JACKSCMAN F 0UX
231665
238134
251329
Lot 19
0200
EAMES W BRENT ETUX
234679 ry
Lot 20
0210
SNELL GOLDEN C
Ld 1
LOt
NIELSEN RICHARD P ETUX
199412
246977
253423
Lot , ?3
0260
ANDERSON C KEVIN ETUX
Lot 26 Lot 27
T-145 T -144
0013 0012
BOYLE NILE
147788
GENTA
136
82
Lott)
0010
ETUX 25 2
THUESON MICHAEL B ETUX
259230
270497
Lot 1
125
0210
RAIN €Y sttl
s
0190
PETERSON VILDA ANN
L ,.
0170
DUERDEN DAVID S
0
Lot 17
0150
BISSETTE JAMES K
LOt
0130
MITCHELL JIMMY D
Lat- 3
0110
AHLRI HS REVOCABLE
LOPE
0090
BRATSMAN DEVONJ
Lag
0070
HARROP ALICE G
Lca>1917
0050
BLANCHARD BRUCE W
Latta
247821
0030
MAXFIELD ROBERT
LOt
0010
ANDERSON RALPH S
ANDERSON EeDiE M
, —C49513
266421
T-143 1
—ir T-16
0010_ /ED,°S 0005
LV TR ETAL
HEER LEO F25759900 B202P23N�0: 4
160087 257672 4q44558g 133421
ELLEN 273093 282 28296
104
R
BERRY BLAIR TUX
9 3 4
0050
DANIELS DAVID ETUX
100
273922
277691
Lot 5
0060
HAWKER JOHN T ETUX
27375
Lot���� 1
0220
KOTTER PAULJ
Lot222
GEORGE RALPH K ETUX`
Lot520
0180
NELSON DIANE R
227502
Lda18
257422
0160
GROVER CINDYL
Lc t 46
0140
GOODLIFFE MARVIN 8
Lot09174
260291
0100
RICKS GERALD V ETUX
Lo 2 b
0080
CHURCH KENTF
Lot 5940 m ..
0060
RICKS VERNON R
Lot96 m,
0040
JENSEN MONAK
Lo1
0020
SMITH CHARLES 5 JR
Lot 2
25
99
... 278577 u
231845
7021 JACQUELINE JENSEN
125 T7i0 nn T 06
1-63 267065 268540
9074
JENSEN TERRY LADE
4297
8150P538
268538
PARKIN WILMA
61001
162650
162652
163913
273777
T-034, T-1
9260 9
PARKINS CLINTON D TUX
286725 -SMITH
2
2 f959
2 27
0120 ",
OLSEN ROGER ETUX 9020
0 2 m OLSEN ROGEP ETUX
1_ 1 a4 �u , w�
1 _471_
9486
BARNEY D
167114
175427
RAS
78
TOLL JACQUELINE JENSE
2 59475
_59476
268539
tl1'/tl T -12
PARKINSON CLINTON D
201604
272893
9180
PARKINSON CAM
220
20
IIB T 85
9249 NA 9243
PARKINSON N I A
162650 ARKINSON WILMA
162652
217599 243118
243117 272694
27377 273777
9244 T-236
PARKINSON WILMA
T E ETUX 220447
243117
272835
273777
131 5
T-72
9313
PAUL ARTHUR JOSEPH
220405
9361 T -0790
NELSON STUART
126920
216193
9409 T-18
WALKER MARTVD ETUX
213935
230065
247900
9457 T- o8
MESSICK GEORGE J ETUX .�
243798
261812 B190 P198
264041 224548
9481 rte° �
481
LD LVLE K ETUX
272897
9515
ENCER JILL
215782
274729
9506
CHARLES 5
198277
213268
213269
7o5
9121 T '
MCCULLOCH MARY W
148474
2 64410
264511
UGLAS K
9507
USSEO
2290
SEELEY DWAYNE
0 1
0 04 00 1
SS HER PA ICIA
L ' IDAVIS, NANCY
IV SHAVE ETUX .
8
6521 R c:
6
13
llA1 T
MADIS� DI
SCHO %202P126
302
LJEUX
Lot° 1'A AI
I 80
3011 3 750
cDEE BYRAM ETU 001
.201 6.11
250. NLO
4770
STSTAN P
6MORGON ROBE TL
,
4740
KEW/All JOHN, ,21 KAM E.'tn
Ts2
2890
R M 1118 INTER
79623
1BD re
4600
A 'RAYDON E
A 9 p g .XNNB
1214
cr 1p
1231 •_
BEE A 1850
CAMDKAISF ND
1219
AI STEVEN
EERSON
4741
5490
PETERSON AY
1
PERE.. ns
196195 n
MOD u
CA
0191
3050
ROWRERRY IRMA C
64291
t2
0160
0141
�`Rfi3T tt
BLACK 2
0220
BLACK .FLON
s
LROWN R F NE IJ
Lot 7
0160
w ;KIc
2290
MItE CEK
0090
2260
F GL ENDA
NEDROVY DR
4140
GASPER ROBE
4160
BATES ORRIN RAYMON
5310
NDE.RSON NAT
t- 5
2952
r THE JARED — 4
F 252579 T!5
4850
T rL�t
STANLE
1
2955 1
cIL ALB JOHN A E^UX
2
JAC ETUX
0111
*SON 7.1.11A UX
53 0091
AL
Lot 1
LTORVAL RI PE SI2.11
4
Lot 1
Lot 3 Lot 4
2891
RAW r DELL RAY
4840
a1 RBEI O j `'TUx
is f j
FOi
001
27E142 2 L1
0042
et
sES INCTA
2890
AI REXBURG LLC
, 2 2 7 7 , 602
XTR
TRICIA
292532
00
GLAIR 8 DEES OK TIRE STORE
2890
BEARDALLL GARNET
INWS
2
4 980
rH RRY ETUX
- 1„014,-
520
0 028 D ETLX
r
E 3 4780 6 4730
y S RANDY A FOX 60 , MONK ILLY WA
29T361 PTE 9883 8106201595
�I9953
0210 01
0030
Lot
4960
ETUX
Lot 2
C U L-D E-SAU
0081
Lot 3
of 8
3730
Lam;
Lo''9
st NORTH
0100
PARKINSON Y
24
4461
TAYLOR NINE, ETAL
Lot 1
EST MAIN
0
SNELL GREGORY O ETU
ILO
0070
0060
HOLE NY
0132
MUIR El MO R ETUX FAMILY TR
0112
;320 A
It 16 NNT TH
AU 2665 ET ,X
DEAN
X651
wu<s 0 1819
4590
529
COL 08 ANGEL
#IU
0970
IA. OR GARY ETUX
25642 257344
25043 60166
1451
DIEPER 6 091 5X
' —_
2180 2200 E VA S DAN. HAYES
VANS DAVID HAVE. EP3
LVl I
3000
SON SA4I EC FE
LOt 4
c STEN E
n
MADE FRA 852 JR TUX Cr) Lein
1922,7
5290
HUBBARD LEE
C ETUX
252531
1200
Mc�ileli D.
1191
DUN GEN.
0010
DAKERR KARL R
3
STEVEN
2270
0010
MATI.W.CONSTRUCTICN 1NC
0970
DEMOB JA
3620
JOHNSON DOYLE ETAL
0230
7 681.
CA
5O{
1891
PEDERSEN I
PETE
N
66
1 -n_
BEESLM
66
T -45
66. .5- -
ER 1
PET f
2
27461
66
GACY P
019 4
CAMPHOUS1
12'
CHRI'•
MPHOUS
127
T -19,34
1870
127
EVEN A.
82
66
0 6
ARP WOES E
m
KERMIT
T -212
A 186(
K E Egg
BARNEY
66
1840
NADAULD
137725
AMPHOUS', KERMIT
146.
30 0
R❑WBERRY IR
164293
:Y)
95.5T -6 53
4741
PETERSON R:: PROPERTIES LLC
T-4
5461
2 tEARF.y e p14INIE
RAY G.
66 T_ 1 66 66
0141 OT1h
KERMI +IDDIS ❑N GL❑RIIF�_ N
ARE, \ TT 0099 P ffCC
HANNI V CR MG ETL \GT8 \ #2�
BARNE9 RAFY❑MES9n
�E 05 L TA3S) 293829
p AR 2932
<ELL RAY
ELLA K.
-E7- 4 5 x.25
30 0 3b 10
tfrAIAPPE 9 DEL:H ❑ME I
g
115.5
PRPERTIES LLC.
49.5 84.5 97.5
T -i 0
1 N 14j41 A rim TR " S .gy4i1 K.
247.5
38
PR ❑PERTI ,SM
SH
2
HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES
231.5
2T8 ?0
LER
1
•
•
•
LLC 00
ESTEAD PR❑PERT_ES LLC
7 7 9 2$ 3
8066
20.5
INT
\ 66.5
HI R
82.5
:+
o
0
ES INC.
LC
74.25
4
BURTON A GRAYD ❑N ETUX TR
BURT ❑N AYD ❑N & PATRICIA
10 —WTR II 11 11 1 1 10 — WTR
)-
z
W Q N _ W
° ~ W NO 0 0 ) W
2 4 + � dd � n.
d II II II J -I
�
o ( damZ1- 20
W r II Z Zp n.>-
<1-
0 Q� m» >
v)11 Ezzz
1❑1 1 ❑1
,OZX,Ce
00 +0i
❑
0
z
4 + - ---0
SD
z
0
> 3:
o
p
J
Q Z
O
ct
z
10 — lI/TR-
.oa
.v
J 0
Q
>
z �a
H Z Q
U) Q U D
W � 00 p
W
CC ct
0_ L
Q J O
F 3 < �
0 v) X
z00
W
°
I- J
J Z m
J a :
`= 0' W
r &)
Z = Q
APSHALT PAVEMENT
TYPI CAL
10 — WTR
" z
C7
SRVB -- SRve— Q W Q — SRVO -- SRiIB--
- J (J)
Z > Q
to
rn
to
to
+
co
-
1 WTIR 10 — WTR
r>Y
1—
3
0
F-
3
0
TT ToT
10 °- WTR
ci
0
WTR 10 — WTR
(2(
0
❑E
EXISITNG 48" STORM SEWER
STORM MH -A STA: 0 +69.39
RIM = 4859.40
INV. IN = 4852.64
INV. OUT = 4852.43
STRI-1-
WI-S
W
°
z
0
a l/)
W -,
W Q
0 CC
I U
a �
W
k-
O J Z
W J
w
z
CI
J
i <
Q
U II-
O0 W U Lu
CC 0w
= SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
= STORM SEWER MANHOLE
= WATER VALVE
= FIRE HYDRANT
ADJOINING
PROPERTY LINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING FENCE
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATER MAIN
❑E ❑E OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
SUBJECT
PROPERTY LINE
II
II
D
0
WT
8
a
0
d
V)
J
U
a
10 —W
R
O
O
O
}
a
1-
z
N
a
0
0
to
o 03
O d
II
00
d
11 0
E • z
N
ro d00 ,
• d d'=
O CO
O 00
(0 d
.4. z
II Z p..
a
▪ Z p Z
10 — WTR
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 0 , 0 40
(IN S)
1 inch = 20 ft.
10 — WTR
c4mulAdi ( R
ENGINEERING • PLANNING • MANAGEMENT
MAIN STREET STATION
GRADING PLAN
DRAWN BY O.E. MOON
CHECKED BY: W.R. DYER
GRADING.DWG
wv
1
D4 m
GROUPu.c.
DATE: 10MAY02
JOB NO.: 01153