HomeMy WebLinkAboutPost Hearing - Donna & Ken Benfield - 201 Millhollow RdSeptember 6, 2022
Mr. Mayor
Members of the Rexburg City Council
I would like to list several reasons for you that I believe should help you in your
decision making process whether or not to change property from LDR1 to LDR2 or
even slow down your process changing the zoning for what you have listed on the
Notice of Public Hearing to Amend the Zoning Map for the City of Rexburg. The
said property is listed as The Preserve, parcel number RPRXBCA0291271. I am not
quite sure if the Preserve is the correct name for the property but it is the
property that most people refer to as the acreage south of Star View Drive.
1. The P & Z Committee made a decision to deny said property on the basis of
the number of residents living within the area affected and listening to the
wants of the people in their community. If you go to the Comp Plan
(example attached) you will see over and over again that the main purpose
of the Comprehensive Plan (which is a living document able to be changed
and/or amended every six months) is to preserve the quality of life.
2. The Community Vision statement states "Residents of Rexburg have
chosen to live here because they enjoy the current quality of life,
aesthetics, recreational opportunities, mix of land uses, and patterns of
development that the City provides. The primary vision of the City of
Rexburg Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that these qualities are
maintained, preserved, and enhanced."
3. We would hate to see those qualities that everyone loves about Rexburg
are denied because of an incorrect wording used in the decision -making
process to deny.
4. In this change of zoning the density is being increased. Density in the
correct place is one of the qualities of this area that people look for in
Rexburg. If they want more affordable housing (as the developer stated, he
will provide) they will go to areas where that can be accomplished. And
there are many areas in the city where that is possible. It is not feasibly
possible in this area, or he would not be asking you to change the zoning.
Why has the area not been farmed? Because it is lava rock with hills and
gulleys. How are you going to build affordable housing — housing for first
time buyers — in this environment.
5. On page 86 of the Comp Plan - Chapter 7 — Natural Resources It states that
the Goals and Objectives are to #1 Where appropriate, preserve open
spaces and natural resources of the city that contribute to the overall
vision and image of the City of Rexburg. Areas to protect which are
sensitive areas — High value or critical wildlife habitats — view corridors —
hillsides, ridges, or benches. (attached)
6. As stated on page 115 of the Comp Plan "The City should support the areas
of the eastern portion of the city where topography, flood plains, steep
slopes, or narrow drainage make development difficult for linear parks.
This is a perfect place for hiking and biking and connectivity to the city
trail system now in place. (attached)
7. Page 115 again shows were a survey conducted in 2008 noted that 49% of
responses mentioned the need for the development of additional larger
parks. Supporting utilization of areas of the eastern portion of the city
where topography, floodplains, steep slopes are mentioned several times.
8. 1 was continually asked over and over during my years on the council, how
were we going to keep our small-town atmosphere from becoming Provo.
always tried to assure our community that we can do both. We can put
the density by and around the University as the City so professionally has
done, and the quality and atmosphere of the community surrounding it will
remain strong and supportive. A place where people can feel the openness
and serenity that space provides while still supporting the density where it
is wanted and needed.
9. Please, please don't give way to the feelings that more people, more
houses, means more tax dollars for the city, therefore it is a good
decision.
10.If you still are not sure, that is proof that it shouldn't be done until further
studies are done. Please give us the time to have experts in these fields
make sure this is the correct place for building multiple homes.
14
Thank you for your considerate
PREFACE
The City of Rexburg Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, City staff, and the general public have
dedicated many hours to revising the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rexburg. Special thanks are
extended to all those who continue to participate in the planning process.
comprehensive plan is a living document. This plan for the year 2020 updates the plan completed in
too late to get involved in the process and onqoing_planning participation by the citizens of the
community is encouraged.
It is suggested that you check with City staff or the Planning and Zoning Commission to see what
amendments are currently being contemplated and add your input to the suggestions for possible
inclusion in future updates of the plan
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Community Vision Statement
The Comprehensive plan is the official statement of the City's legislative body (City Council),
which sets forth its major policies concerning desirable future physical eve opmen . The
published comprehensive plan includes a single unified physical design for the community and
it attempts to clarify the relationships between physical development policies and social and
economic goals. It consists of text, maps and other exhibits and includes all of the planning
elements required by Idaho Code Section 67-6508.
The comprehensive plan is specifically implemented through the City Planning and Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances, as well as through administrative decision making. Therefore it is
critical for public officials to remain well versed in the current plan to assure that day to day
decision making does not in some way disrupt the policies and long term initiatives outlined
herein.
Rexburg is in the middle of substantial changes. As these changes are made, it is important
that they be compatible with the efficient functioning of the rest of the community for the
present and for the future. When a community begins to think about how present decisions
are affecting what their town will become, the planning process has begun.
In order to develop a plan that reflects what citizens want their community to be in the future,
the ideas and desires of its citizens should be collected. The existing conditions should be
inventoried, and then the citizens should decide what opportunities and problems exist. Once
the opportunities and constraints have been identified, goals and policies should be developed
to maximize the opportunities and mitigate the constraints. Finally, a course of action for
implementing the policies is prepared. When the planning process is complete, the finished
product is:
A collection of ideas and desires of the citizens of the community as to what they want
for their community in the future.
A statement adopted by the governing body listing its objectives and policies for future
development that informs property owners, developers, citizens, and the public
agencies of the city's intentions.
A guide for decision making for the advisory and governing bodies in the city, federal,
and state agencies considering the funding of projects within the city.
Community Vision Statement
Residents of Rexburg have chosen to live here because they enjoy the current
quality of life, aesthetics, recreational opportunities, mix of land uses, and patterns
of development that the City provides. The primary vision of the City of Rexburg
Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that these qualities are maintained, preserved, and
enhanced.
The City of Rexburg is a community that highly values its history of a well -maintained
residential community. The preservation of quality of life is of utmost i mortanctQ res6dQnts
and business owners. Rexburg views itself as a city where residents, tourists, businesses, and
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 11
Chapter 7: Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Where appropriate, preserve open spaces and natural resources of the
City that contribute to the overall vision and image of the City of
Rexburg.
Objective 1.1: Identify open spaces that are important elements of the Rexburg
community character, as appropriate to implement a community
vision.
Objective 1.2: Work with developers, citizens, and other stakeholders to protect
resources important to the community, when appropriate.
Policy: Explore the need and applicability of various tools to protect 000 ;0
sensitive areas. An overlay zone could address development in
areas with any of the following characteristics:
�y
• High value or critical wildlife habitats �
• Known or suspected wetlandsj�
• —�Lie�corridors ! ,�
• River and stream corridors
• _ Hillsides, ridges, or benches
• Groundwater and surface water
Goal 2: Protect the health, safety and welfare or Rexburg citizens by
minimizing risks to life and property as a result of natural hazards.
Objective 2.1: When applicable, identify hazardous areas within and around Rexburg,
so that they can be avoided as much as possible.
Policy: If deemed appropriate, develop a sensitive lands overlay zone
with accompanying regulations and requirements designed to
protect natural resources from the potential adverse impacts of
development. Natural hazards identified may include:
• Unsuitable or critical building soils
• Sensitive slopes or slopes over 25%
• Floodplain or flood areas
• High vegetation/fire danger
• Known geologic hazards
Natural Resources
View Corridors
Rexburg is located in an area of unique visual quality, and preservation of key view corridors is
a goal of the community. Primary vi we whi h the Ci ym may want to on id r for preservation
�inrludP the R xhura Ben h. the LDS Temple, the Teton Mountains, and the Snake River.
Where appropriate and necessary, the City can utilize development regulations on building
height, reflectivity, and location to ensure that key views are not obstructed or detracted from
by development.
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 86
Specific locations for new parks have not been indicated in this comprehensive plan as it is
difficult to predict the availability of land or resources for the establishment of new parks at
this time. However, the historic grid extension concept included in the Land Use Chapter of the
plan includes a park space for each new neighborhood. These future parks may eventually be
developed in any number of places within the neighborhoods. The park spaces are shown on
the Land Use and Parks maps simply to indicate that if the populations of these neighborhoods
increase over time as a result of development, there will be a demand for designated park
areas.
Options for funding these new parks can come through a variety of mechanisms, but should all
ultimately come from the developers of the surrounding lands. Impact fees can help meet the
additional demand for park space created by expanding the population of an area.
Alternatively, the City may require a developer to set aside a certain portion of land for a park
in their development master plans. A third option is to require developers to pay a fee in lieu
of the setting aside of a specific parcel for the development of a park.
A recreation survey conducted by BYU-I students in 2008 noted that 49% of survey responses
mentioned that the development of additional larger parks is preferred over smaller parks.
However, nearly the same amount, 46% of respondents said they preferred pocket parks. As
the student report notes, this suggests that future park planning in the community should
ideally include the development of both large and small parks. Pocket parks are challenging
for many cities to maintain, but research shows that they are some of the more frequently
used parks in many places. The City should work with developers to have smaller park spaces
designed into subdivisions, and ensure that homeowner association fees and programs are
established for park maintenance. Maintenance of small park spaces is very expensive for
cities, and Rexburg leaders discourage the development of pocket parks that will require
maintenance and upkeep by the City. Regardless of the type and size of parks developed, the
City should aim to provide a balance of park space opportunities within the city as it grows.
The following is a list of other specific park recommendations for Rexburg:
• Encourage the development of a new a neighborhood park in the southeast quadrant
of the City
—��0 Support the utilization of areas of the eastern portion of the City where topography,
floodplains, steep slopes, or narrow rainages make eve opment i icu t for the
• Explore the benefit and feasibility of developing a Capital Improvements Plan that
identifies and prioritizes park, recreation, and open space needs.
• Encourage the location of neighborhood parks within one-half mile of new residential
developments. Such parks should emphasize landscaped open areas, picnic facilities,
and playground equipment.
• Support the connection of new and existing parks, open spaces, neighborhoods, and
neighborhood centers together with a networked "green grid" of sidewalks, bicycle
routes, and trails.
• Provide facilities and equipment necessary to meet local needs at neighborhood parks
when possible. Such improvements may include landscaping, trees, picnic areas,
playground equipment, and sports fields in all new neighborhood parks.
• Support the design of storm water retention ponds, when needed, for multiple uses
including parks and temporary storm water retention facilities.
• Cooperate with the Trails of Madison County organization to explore the development
lvCi Pam Ulan wrucn iaenunes ine iocation or paths and accompanying facilities
as overlooks, logging paths, picnic areas, signs, parking areas, and nature areas
November 19, 2008 (Table on Page 85 Amended 03 Aug. 2011 by Ordinance 1073) 115
Moose on the move, migrating to Nevada from Idaho, Utah
Moose on the move, migrating to
J g
Nevada from Idaho, Utah
41
9/4/22, 9:47 AM
R
J.".4
RENO, Nev. (AP) — More and more moose from Idaho and Utah are making
their way into Nevada, where they're finding wilderness to their liking without
the kind of help from humans most species get when they relocate.
Irregular and sporadic moose sightings in Nevada date back to the 1950s,
but about a decade ago, observations began to climb in the northeast corner
of the state.
https://local. newsbreak.com/nevada-state/2731381262566-moose-on-t...-nevada-from-idaho-utah?s=dmg_local_email_bucket_12.web2_fromweb Page 1 of 3
Moose on the move, migrating to Nevada from Idaho, Utah
9/4/22, 9:47 AM
By 2018, the Nevada Department of Wildlife estimated there were
somewhere between 30 and 50 moose in the state. Now, their numbers total
well above 100, according to department biologist Kari Huebner.
State wildlife officials say it's the first time a big game species has made a
comeback in Nevada without a concentrated relocation effort.
"We did absolutely nothing. It's like the moose have chosen us," Huebner
told the Reno Gazette Journal . "It's something they've done completely on
their own"
In the past three years, the department has collared seven cows and three
bulls to better understand the largest member of the deer family. Two of
them winter in Nevada and summer in Idaho, while the others are full-time
residents of Nevada.
Since 2020, the collared female cows have given birth to four sets of twins,
including one set this year.
Standing almost 6 feet (1.8 meters) tall, moose are one of the largest land
mammals in North America and can weigh up to 1,000 pounds (454
kilograms). They are hooved herbivores — primarily eating leaves, bark and
twigs from trees and shrubs.
They're likely migrating over from southern Idaho and western Utah, where
populations are swelling. Idaho's moose population is pushing 12,000, and
Utah has about 3,000.
As the solitary animals look to expand their territory, they've discovered
Nevada's Elko and Humboldt counties have pockets of ideal moose habitat
— wet riparian areas, plentiful aspen and mahogany stands, serviceberry
bushes to munch on — and no predatory wolves or black bears.
https://local.newsbreak.com/nevada-state/2731381262566-moose-on-t...-nevada-from-idaho-utah?s=dmg_local_email_bucket_12.web2_fromweb Page 2 of 3
Moose on the move, migrating to Nevada from Idaho, Utah
9/4/22, 9 47 AM
Moose have been spotted as far south as the Ruby Mountains in Nevada
southeast of Elko.
"There's a lot more moose habitat in Nevada than people realize," Huebner
said.
The post Moose on the move, migrating to Nevada from Idaho, Utah
appeared first on Local News 8 .
https://local.newsbreak.com/nevada-state/2731381262566-moose-on-t...-nevada-from-idaho-utah?s=dmg_local_email_bucket_12.web2_fromweb Page 3 of 3
Plan for Increasing
Sage -grouse Populations
Developed by the
Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group
As revised and approved by consensus
June 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1
A.
Purpose
1
B.
Need
1
C.
Area
1
D.
Goal
3
E.
How this Plan was Developed
3
F.
How This Plan Was Adopted
4
G.
Constraints
5
II. Recommended
Actions
5
A.
Habitat Recommended Actions
5
1.
Habitat Inventories
5
2.
Evaluate Sage -grouse Habitat Conditions
7
3.
Management Strategies for Sustainable Sagebrush Grass Communities
8
4.
Wildfire Policy
10
5.
Prescribed Fire Policy
12
6.
Recovery/Restoration
13
7.
Wetlands/Riparian Area Management in Sage -grouse Habitat
15
8.
Grazing Management
17
9.
Undesirable Plant and Noxious Weed Control
18
B.
Population Actions
19
1.
Sage -grouse Population Inventories and Monitoring
19
2.
Sage -grouse Hunting
21
3.
Predation
22
C.
Partnerships Recommended Actions
23
1.
Enhance access to interagency and interdisciplinary technical assistance
23
2.
Baseline Information
24
3.
Partnerships for Sage -grouse Conservation Projects
25
4.
Identify Funding Sources
26
D.
Cultural/Human Recommended Actions
27
1.
Pesticide Management
27
2.
Controlling Lek Access
28
3.
Land Use
28
4.
Travel Management
29
5.
Utility Corridors
30
E.
Information Recommended Actions
31
1.
Develop Internet Home Page
31
2.
Upper Snake Sage -grouse Information Repository
32
III. Plan Implementation
33
A.
Population Objectives and Monitoring
33
B.
Future Meetings of the Local Working Group
33
1.
Membership in the Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group
33
2.
Leadership for the Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group
34
3.
Representation on the Idaho Sage -grouse Advisory Group
35
4. Agendas for Local Working Group meetings
5. Goal for Adaptable Plan
6. Means for Amending this Plan
C. Public Outreach
IV. Literature Cited
List of Contributing Members
List of Affiliate Members
Appendices
35
35
35
36
k1 i
38
39
Appendix A. Average Maximum Counts of Male Sage -grouse A-1
Appendix B. Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group Mailing List B-1
Appendix C. Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group Working Charter C-1
Appendix D. Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and their Habitats D-1
Appendix E. Public Comments Received E-1
Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group's
Plan for Increasing Sage -grouse Populations
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of the Plan for Increasing Sage -grouse Populations, developed by the Upper Snake
Sage -grouse Local Working Group (Local Working Group), is to specify recommended actions
for restoring sage -grouse populations in portions of eastem Idaho (as described further in the
section titled "Area," below) in accordance with the 1997 Idaho Sage -grouse Management Plan.
The 1997 Plan has subsequently been replaced by the 2006 Conservation Plan for the Greater
Sage -grouse in Idaho and is now the accepted guiding document in Idaho.
B. Need
Sage grouse populations have exhibited long term declines throughout North America, declining
by greater than 30 percent over the past 30-40 years. Data from lek routes conducted for the
Upper Snake Local Working Group planning area show on average a 40-50 percent decline in
sage -grouse populations based on comparisons with long-term averages. Since 1996, populations
appear to be stable. (See Appendix A.)
Petitions were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the sage -grouse as threatened
or endangered throughout the entire range. Even though the species has not been listed under the
Endangered Species Act (a "Finding of Not Warranted" was published in the Federal Register on
January 7, 2005), specific actions were needed to reduce the possibility of listing. Specific
planned actions addressed in this plan were designed to reverse this declining trend, and improve
the quality and condition of sage -grouse habitat. This plan is intended to be the Conservation
Plan for Sage -grouse in the Upper Snake area. The Local Working Group intends that this Plan
could be used as a template for a Recovery Plan should the birds become a "listed" species as per
the Endangered Species Act.
C. Area
The Local Working Group revised the boundaries of its planning area in June 2009. The revised
planning area can be described as follows:
• All of Teton County, excluding the Big Hole Mountains
• All of Madison County excluding the Big Hole Mountains
• The portion of Jefferson County that lies north and west of the Snake River
• The portion of Bonneville County that lies west of Interstate 15 and north of Highway 20
• The portion of Bingham County that lies north of Highway 20
• The portion of Butte County that lies outside of Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG)'s Big Game Management Unit 50 and north of Highway 20
• The portion of Custer County that lies in Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)'s Big
Game Management Unit 51
Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group's Plan for Increasing Sage Grouse Populations
As Revised, June 2009 Page 1
• The portion of Lemhi County that lies within IDFG Big Game Management Units 51 and 58
• Clark County, in its entirety
• Fremont County, in its entirety.
Sage Grouse Plan Boundary
Upper Snake Sage Grouse Local Working Group
Idaho
N
Wore
A
ti
Macks
inn
ilgore
IPlnd
Palk
79
Spencer
p
or ryde
LW, Hot
Dubo
47
re
Ashton
St
Varner
Antton Y
17
,n
Terreton
45
�Rekzg
v/�w`\
Tetone
Falls
5
• caies Idaho Land Status NPS
-- Highways BLM MNR
N —
Q Planning Area Boundary BOR PRIVATE
DOE STATE I
IR STATEFG
MIL USES 0 5 10 20 Miles
The area is illustrated above.
Sage grouse habitat within the Snake River area is managed by many private landowners and
public agencies. Federal agencies with land management responsibilities in the area are:
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sheep Experiment Station (Sheep Station)
Upper Snake Sage -grouse Local Working Group's Plan for Increasing Sage Grouse Populations
As Revised, June 2009 Page 2