HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic CommentCity Council of Rexburg Idaho
Force local Improvement District (LID)
You are now pushing financial burden of infrastructure repairs onto a
select group of property owners instead of Fairly funding projects
through taxation. That spreads the cost across all residents if you are
affected in that area could force us to pay $1o,000 to $20,000 or
more. If you cannot pay this amount of money to the city you will put a
lien on our property for the next to years with interest in all honesty.
Do you think this is fair to a few selective homes of Rexburg Idaho ?
To expect us to pay that kind of money for our pocketbook would be a
financial Breaking Point. Let's think of a different option that makes
sense.
We don't have that kind of money plus you want to make interest on
us! Again in all fairness are you thinking of us or your own pocket
book. You're forcing this financial burden onto a select few while
letting the rest of the city off the hook. Why is that? Why should that
be just our problem? Why isn't that a Rexburg City problem plus
forcing taxation. On a small group of property owners.
City of Rexburg Council this is an unfair financial burden that you are
putting on a few of us.
Again don't place this on a select few make this a Rexburg City
problem.Plus you Are thinking of putting a lien on everybody's home
that can afford to pay for it, How kind! think about us people
including us that can't afford it plus the interest used common sense.
Resident of Rexburg Idaho Merrill and Linda Sharp
TO: REXBURG PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIOIN
FROM: Karl & Norma Edwards
We note that there is a hearing regarding a conditional Use Permit for 2355 Summerfield
Lane to allow religious worship and meeting house.
As residents in the Summerfield development, we would like to endorse the permit. We
feel it will be an important addition to the community, add to property value, and provide
needed space for worship.
Karl L. Edwards
Norma J. Edwards
2143 W. 690 S.
Rexburg, ID 83440
208-356-9191
j)(64l l�'Y'" `9 1�(A/yl9Ll�V
X-61 al�L
o , L-- f
5r-el,t- (,-.
Michael and Bonnie Cornick
849 S 2380 W
Rexburg, ID 83440
August 14, 2025
Subject: Support for the Proposed Conditional Use Permit for Summerfield Div. 6, Lot 1 Block
13 for allowing religious worship and meeting house in Low Density Residential 2 zone
To the Rexburg City Commissioners:
We live next to the lot proposed for a church meeting house and are in favor of having the
proposal approved.
As more housing is built in the area, there is a need for more places to meet. For the many
residents in the Summerfield community who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, the location is convenient. It would make a significant difference for our
family in travel time.
Noise is not a concern because of the times services and activities are held. The buildings are
also well built so that noise happening inside the building is not easily heard outside the building.
Church meeting houses are well -maintained and will add to the beauty of our community. The
empty lot, on the other hand, is unsightly and attracts weeds and pests.
We ask that you approve the proposal.
Thank you,
5 �'w`c�
Michael and Bonnie Cornick
September 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 consideration,
aol s. M,A,( Alp d2ow )Pot. 1loAJ �.1
August 15, 2022
Dear Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to rezone 742 Nina Dr. from Low
Density 1 LDR1 to Medium Density Residential 1 MDR1 in the Ricks/Palmer
subdivision.
*Property values are likely to go down in the neighborhood. Studies have shown
that Airbnb's in a neighborhood have been the cause for lower values. 1 MDR1 is
inconsistent with the current neighborhood. There are no other homes in the
subdivision with that zoning.
*With short term rentals, you don't know who's coming or going in your
neighborhood. I have two grandchildren who live a few doors down from this
location and from personal experience, you only have so much control on who
rents your Aribnb. If you decline people outside of your parameters, they will ding
you and possibly remove you from using the Airbnb program.
*If you allow the change, then everyone who files for a change in the future in the
neighborhood, would have to be approved. We don't want a neighborhood of
short-term rentals. Or any rentals for that matter. We are zoned for single family
residences.
*We don't know the future of this home. The owner says she will just do certain
things, but what happens when she decides to sell. This is now zoned for multiple
family use and the new owner can manage it as such.
There are just too many negatives with this. It benefits no one. There is not one
positive side to the whole situation.
If the property owner is looking for some extra income, there are other ways to
earn it and not at the expense of all their neighbors and everyone living in the
subdivision.
Sid .cerely,
Cammie Muir
619 Laleene Dr
Rexburg, ID 208-351-0145
DATE: November 23, 2022
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Rexburg
Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk, City of Rexburg
FROM: Clifton E. Barber, 736 Hillside Drive ,
RE: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 501 E. 7"' S (parcel RPR6N40E296601 and
RPR6NE322402 from Low -Density (LDR1) to Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1)
This memo is written to express opposition to the proposed rezoning (from LDR1 to MDR1) of a 23.1
acre of undeveloped land owned by Eldwin LLC. The rezoning proposal appeared on the minutes for
the November 17, 2022, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a scheduled public
hearing on December 1, 2022. My memo is organized into two sections. The first section describes a
concern regarding increased traffic. The second section raises a question regarding the impact of the
proposed rezoning on the nearby Lincoln Elementary School. The memo closes with an observation
regarding the assumed rationale for the request for rezoning.
Concern Regarding Increased Traffic
In April of this year (2022), my wife and I purchased Tax Parcel RPRHRVH2B3004B (address: 736 Hillside
Drive) in the Harvest Hills subdivision (zoned RR2). Our purchase was made after I carefully reviewed
the current zoning map for Rexburg (see image below), as well as the most recent iteration of the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rexburg. My review of these documents was motivated by a strong
desire to avoid the situation where we lived previously, as explained in the following paragraph.
.f
-rr OEM
JTr Jr. -
Area of
proposed
rezoning
-- - -- —
rn
Location of our
property
Jefferson. ID, Madison -Rexburg GIS, Bureau of Land Management. Esri, HERE. Garmin....
Barber Memo - Page 2 of 3
Prior to moving to Rexburg, we lived in Liberty Lake, Washington. An image of the City of Liberty
Lake's zoning map appears below (source: https://www.libertylakewa.gov/476/Zoning-Information).
City of Liberty Lake "Zoning Map - 2021
If L barry La"
Ourban Growth Area
Parse s
Rir [Hunt SAP
Lakef110ferHa—alWre SAP
Rt
R2
R3
VI
'.t
uo to mao ecaa m e srers
^at- ntt W IseN�
l Yww maR ¢ b nb^ma:avi
ONiaLGi On, ara s nJ i
I6gil e.JCVrMM
In Liberty Lake, we lived in a subdivision called Legacy Ridge (see arrow), which was zoned R1; similar
the LDR1 and RR1 designations in the City of Rexburg. The adjacent gray area in the map was zoned
M1 and M2; similar to MDR1 in Rexburg. The apartment complexes that were constructed in M1 zone
in Liberty Lake significantly increased traffic congestion for our subdivision, and I did not want to have
the same situation occur with regard to the location of our Rexburg residence. That said, when we
purchased our Harvest Hills lot, we were aware of traffic congestion resulting from having a university
campus nearby. Nonetheless, I felt that there was a sufficient buffer of low -density residential zoning
to shield us from such congestion. One of my primary concerns is that the proposed rezoning will
eliminate this buffer, and produce traffic congestion similar to what we experienced in Liberty Lake.
Question Regarding the Impact of Rezoning on Lincoln Elementary School
Were the rezoning of the Eparcel of land located at 501 E. 7' South to be approved, this would
undoubtedly impact the enrollment of Lincoln Elementary School, located at 358 E 2n`' S. Lincoln
Elementary school has a current enrollment of about 380 students from kindergarten through 4t" grade
(see image on next page; Source:
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/id/rexburg/schools/160192000339).
Although several metrics (e.g. No Child Left Behind Tests ) indicate that Lincoln Elementary ranks
better than 94% of both Idaho schools similar schools nationally, it may be presently operating near
capacity.
Barber Memo - Page 3 of 3
As indicated in the bar graph below, the average class size exceeds that of the district, the state, and
even the nation. If the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission were to approve the Eldwin LLC
request to rezone this property from LDR1 to MDR1, it is likely that an additional 50-100 students
would be added to the student body of Lincoln Elementary. Is Lincoln Elementary able to absorb such
an increase and maintain its current quality of education? I do not know the answer to this question,
but recommend that it be discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in advance of making a
decision regarding the rezoning proposal.
20
17
16
0
AVG FOR THIS SCHOOL AVG FOR DISTRICT AVG FOR STATE AVG FOR NATION
Kindergarten
- 19.5iu
Grade 1
21.1%
Grade 2
Grade 3 20.5-
Grade 4 16.6`
Tw
An Observation Regarding the Rationale for the Rezoning Request
I was unable to find anything regarding the rationale undergirding the proposed rezoning. I am aware
that higher -density development often means that developers can earn greater profits for construction
on the same parcel of land. My assumption is that the parcels in question (RPR6N40E296601 and
RPR6NE322402) were purchased with full awareness of the current LDR1 zoning designation. If the
primary rationale for the rezoning is to increase the profitability of the investment, I share the
observation that good business practice would have dictated that return on investment should have
been calculated based on the current LDR1 zoning designation, and not on the hope that a rezoning
would be necessary to make the investment more profitable.
11/28/22
To Whom it May Concern,
My husband and I have lived with our family in our home on Terra Vista Drive for 18 years
now. We've loved this area for the sense of community and the type of neighborhood it has
provided for us to raise our family. We moved into this home because of the zoning out of our
front yard and the field off of our backyard. While we have always known that the field behind
our house might be sold, we never worried about that detail because we assumed that the
zoning would maintain the integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods. Our community in the
area of the Harvest Heights subdivision, Eaglewood subdivision and Terra Vista neighborhood
all fits into the zoning definition of LDR1. The MDR1 definition allows manufactured homes,
duplexes and twin homes. Not only will this zoning massively alter the makeup of our
community, but it will also lend itself to more transient families. As a neighborhood of
established families that move into this neighborhood with the intention of living here for a
reasonable time period, we're not interested in creating a giant housing complex in the middle
of all of our LDR1 homes with transient families that — to be honest — have less of a vested
interest in maintaining their properties and lending the long-term community support to our
local schools and churches that we are used to. This zoning benefits the developer who lives
out of state and not the local residents who call Rexburg home. It affects our property values
but has little tangible impact on the developer. It opens up the option of manufactured homes
and duplexes being built within a quarter -mile of the Rexburg Idaho Temple — one of the
landmarks and pillars of our community. Our temple demands respect - the homes and yards
surrounding the temple should be well -maintained and reflect the care that, typically, long-
term homeowners provide and that short-term homeowners often neglect. 1 believe that
you'll find that the voice/opinion/desire of the homeowners surrounding the proposed zoning
area are unanimous. None of us want the field encompassed by our homes to be zoned as
MDR1. If our voices are ignored, it would be to minimize the voices of the community in
support of a few who don't even live in our city.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these points,
Lindsey & Daniel Dewey
Rexburg City, November 29, 2022
We are writing in concern about the planning and zoning proposal that is being
submitted to change the area 501 E 7th South, Rexburg Idaho from a LDR1 to a MDR1.
We are in opposition to this proposal.
We have several concerns about this proposal, some of which are personal because of
where wel live in connection with this property that is under proposal to be rezoned, but
for this letter, we will try to focus more on the effect of the surrounding neighborhoods
that will be adversely affected if this property is rezoned to a MDR1.
We live near the corner of 7th south and 4th east. Every single day, we witness the
amount of cars that utilize the 3-way stop sign at the intersection of 7th South and 4th
East. We also witness how fast those cars are driving, especially the cars that are
driving east on that road. Every day there are several cars going in excess of the speed
limit that completely ignore those stop signs. We witness every day, drivers unaware of
the children in the neighborhood, and the bus -stops that are close -by that intersection.
If the planned proposal goes through, the increase in traffic in that particular intersection
would be highly affected. The chance of serious car accidents would increase
substantially, as the proposal is to significantly increase the amount of homes, modular
homes, or multi -family dwellings that will be built there, rather than keeping with the
original zoning plan of LDR1.
Another concern we have is the flooding that happens each spring in this area. As the
snow melts, from the upper area of the proposed property rezoning, it compiles into a
huge pond at the bottom of this property, in-between Eaglewood Estates and the
Harvest Hills subdivisions. This issue is a concern for any building that happens on this
property, whether it is zoned as LDR1 or MDR1. However, if the area is rezoned, then
there is potential for more dwellings to be affected, as they are tightly condensed into
this flooding zone. The more homes, the more peoples homes and lives will be
disrupted and affected by potential flooding.
The final concern is if this property is rezoned to an MDR1, it will decrease the property
value of each and every home in the Eaglewood, Harvest Hills, and Terra Vista
neighborhoods. This is hundreds of homes, hundreds of families, that would be
affected by a decrease in the property value of their homes. Hundreds of hard working
families have worked to create homes and yards that add beauty to the city of Rexburg.
This area of Rexburg is beautiful and well maintained. By changing the zoning, it would
allow homes, or modular homes, or multi -family units that are tightly packed together,
with very little yard and landscaping, which would completely contradict the environment
and atmosphere that is already in this section of Rexburg.
We really hope that this proposed zoning change will be rejected. The people of
Rexburg love our community and want to keep and maintain the high quality standards
that have already been in place in the zoning process. Please consider all of the
families who live here in our community, who love our community and want to continue
to see it as a safe and beautiful place to raise our families. If we allow outside
developers to come in and develop the land that they have not grown up and respected
and loved, like the residents of Rexburg, it will negatively affect the community we live
in.
Thank you foryourconsideration,
Dr. Kelly Dustin & Alison Dustin
COMMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
REXBURG ZONING MAP
RELATIVE TO PROPERTY PARCEL RPRXBCA0254499
Scheduled Public Hearing — November 17, 2022, 6:30 p.m.
My name is Brent G. Harris. I reside at 1125 Widdison Lane in Rexburg. Idaho which is
north of, and relatively close to, the parcel of land for which the zoning change is
proposed. I am writing (and speaking) to voice my opposition to the proposed zoning,
change. I have 3 main areas of objection.
l . Approval of this zoning change would violate the intent of the Rexburg
Comprehensive Plan, and past decisions of the Rexburg City Council.
The parcel of land being proposed for rezoning was annexed into the city of Rexburg
in 2003. It was agricultural land then and is still being used for agricultural purposes.
as are the adjacent parcels of land on both the north and south.
The following statements are made on Page 84 of the current edition of the 2020
Rexburg Comprehensive Plan:
"Rural Cluster. This Comprehensive Plan designation includes lands where
residential development is allowed at an overall base density but clustered onto
smaller lot sizes, while maintaining large tracts of open land. Again, the desire of the
community is to preserve the rural character of the city, and maintaining large open
spaces in critical view areas are essential to ensure this openness is preserved. "
(underlining added)
"Agriculture. This Comprehensive Plan designation includes lands used primarily.foY
grazing, crop farming, hobby farming. and other related uses. These lands are
intended to remain in their customary agricultural use for the foreseeable, future.
Residents like the small town, rural feel of Rexburg, and these areas should preserve
that character. " (underlining added)
These excerpts from the Rexburg Comprehensive Plan seem applicable to the land
(and adjacent land) under consideration for the proposed zoning change. EspecialIN
applicable is this statement: "Residents like the small town, rural feel of Rexburg, and
these areas should preserve that character".
The owners of this land have previously petitioned several times, including twice in
2021. to allow higher density housing on the property. Each time, the request was not
approved.
Page 1 of 2
'. Rezoning of this property could potentially create life safety and traffic problems.
The parcel of land, for which the zoning change is being proposed, is a long,
relatively narrow parcel which is bounded by existing agricultural land, owned by
others, on both the north and the south; by Highway 20 on the east; and by 12' West
Street on the west.
Unless the adjoining property on either the north or south (or both) are developed
simultaneously, the only option for ingress or egress is via 12th West Street. This does
not seem reasonable, from either a life safety or traffic flow viewpoint, for a
development having LDR2/LDR1 housing densities.
Potential violation of Idaho State Statutes concerning use of surface water.
Section 67-6537 of the Idaho Statutes is entitled "Use of Surface and Ground Water".
This section is part of the Idaho State Statutes that contain requirements for local land
use planning by Idaho cities and counties. The introduction of this section states:
`The intent of this section is to encourage the use of surface water for irrigation. All
applicants proposing to make land use changes shall be required to use surface
water. where reasonably available, as the primary water source for irrigation. "
( underlining added)
The Rexburg Canal flows from the east under Highway 20 and then along the entire
south boundary of this property. There is a lateral ditch with headgates on the east
side of the property which allows for surface irrigation of the land. There is also a
canal on the west side along- 12`h West Street.
The land being proposed for this zoning change is currently pasture land which is
:irrigated by surface water. Would this be changed if the property is rezoned? If so, it
could be a potential violation of Idaho State Code.
Thank you for consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely.
sy&ZC 4 r�
Brent G. Harris
Date: 11 /16/2022
Page 2 of 2
Proposed Rezone from Low -Density Residential 1
to Medium -Density Residential 1
Nina Or
i
Parcels
j_j, Rezone
V
Thu map it for rMraanow• porpotas any.
faatlison County and the City of R,W wy
art not rnportsihle for mis of this don.':
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE ZONING
MAP FOR THE CITY OF REXBURG
Public Hearin: August 18, 2022 at 6:30 P.M. to be held before the Rexburg Planning and
Zoning Commission at 35 N 1" E, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho (#22 00520) to rezone 742
Nina Dr from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Medium -Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone in
the City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho.
Legal Description:
Ricks -Palmer Subdivision Div. 4 Lot 13 Block 4
At such hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and
recommendations relative to such proposed permits. The City Clerk will also accept written
comments at City Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on August 17, 2022. This notice is given pursuant to the
provisions of Section 67-6508, 67-6509 and 67-6511 Idaho Code, and all amendments thereof.
Planning and Zoning Meeting will be streamed live at:
hMs://wv,-w.rexburg.org/livemeedngs/pagg/��live-meedng§.
To participate in this Planning and Zoning Meeting, join with the following information:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https: / /zoom.us /j /97145289740
Or iPhone one -tap :
US: +13462487799„97145289740# or +16699006833„97145289740#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or
+1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 9714528 9740
Se le puede proveer esta notificaci6n en un formato accesible para las personas
discapacidades y/o personas con conocimientos limitados del ingles a pedido
DATED this 25'h day of July 2022.
CITY OF REXBURG
V
Latin
Deborah Lovejoy, City Clerk
Publish: July 29' and August 5`t`, 2022
Attachment: Map
To: The City of Rexburg's Mayor, Planning and Zoning Committee, City Council
Members, Alan Parkinson
From: Homeowners in Pinebrook 1 and 2 and homeowners on Mdoh Lane, Rexburg,
Idaho Me `i I i o `- J 0 ,n '6+ And � rs o-o 9 * /ke d a n I rt
Date: March 30, 2022
Re: Rejection of Planned Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and Rezoning
From Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to LDR1— MDR1 (Low -Density Residential 1 to
Medium -Density Residential 1) as per the "Notice of Public Hearing to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan Map for the City of Rexburg" which was placed at the
entrance of the Pine Brook Estates, Division No. 2, lots 16 through 24 and
rejection of the Applications — File #22-00102 and Application — File #22-00103
We respectfully reject and ask that the Planning and Zoning Committee, City Council Members,
and Alan Parkinson Deny the Rezone Application — File #22-00103 and Comprehensive Plan
Map change Application — File #22-00102 the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan
Designation (Exhibit 1) and Zoning Map change (Exhibit 2). Following are the reasons why we
are asking for the City to DENY the proposed changes:
1. An actual plan, plat change application or proposal is conspicuously absent. One major
travesty is that changing the zoning from Rural to the LDR1-MDR1 would significantly
change the density and engineering and types of uses going from a zoning limiting
development of % acre (21780 sq ft) to lots as small as 8,000 sq ft. and 10,000 sq. ft. for
a duplex and two 5,000 sq ft. lots for a twin home in a MDR1 zone, for example. This is
simply doubling the density the Developer(s) is allowed so that he may cram more
homes into our community, at his great profit and the homeowners and the City's loss.
Additionally, different types of uses are allowed in this LDR1-MDR1 zone. For instance,
Boarding Houses would theoretically now allow for Drug Rehabilitation Centers in this
family neighborhood or manufactured homes on 1/5t' of an acre. A required Plat
Change Application should be presented by the Developer for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to know what is actually planned before the Commission should act or hold
a public hearing.
2. Increased density wasn't initially planned for or built by the Developer, Curtis Ferney.
Before this change should even be considered or evaluated by the Commission to
account for this density increase, a detailed Engineered Impact Study by the Developer
detailing the increased sewer flow, traffic, rain runoff should be completed. According
to Idaho Code 67-6511(2)(a) "Particular consideration shall be given to the effects of any
proposed zone change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision
providing public services". The City of Rexburg has had previous instances of skipping
this needed requirement and backed up sewer, storm water collection, and other
engineering considerations have ended up damaging several businesses and homes in
the last several years.
3. There is a very large and deep pond in the subdivision. What is the greater probability of
more children and adults drowning in the pond? Is the City willing to take on this
increased liability? Perhaps some arrangement can be made between the willing citizen
who has provided this wonderful enticement to our neighborhood to be shifted onto
the City as a condition to this Development proposal? We doubt the City would ever
agree to this arrangement but again, it should have been included in an impact study
before the City planned on a Public Hearing.
4. Proper Notice was not supplied in this case. Idaho Code 67-6509 clearly states, "The
planning or planning and zoning commission, prior to recommending the plan,
amendment, or repeal of the plan to the governing board... The commission shall also
make available a notice to other papers, radio and television stations serving the
jurisdiction for use as a public service announcement. Notice of intent to adopt, repeal
or amend the plan shall be sent to all political subdivisions providing services within the
planning jurisdiction, including school districts and the manager or person in charge of
the local public airport, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing scheduled by
the commission." Based upon these requirements, we do not believe that all of this has
happened, at least as evidenced by the Staff Report before you now.
5. We do not agree with the Comprehensive Plan Map Application and Zoning Change
because we have bought this property and placed our homes knowing that the
Comprehensive Plan had a current zoning of Rural. It appears we have detrimentally
relied on this understanding with the Developer and the City. These new changes will
devalue our homes, put double the people that walk our streets, and increase the
density of homes and will frankly, only make money for the City and the developer(s).
This is an example of Land Speculators changing what has already been planned for and
frankly, just making a bigger margin of profits for the Developer? There is plenty of
vacant property in the Rexburg City limits and Area of Impact where this can be properly
planned, executed, and developed and penciled out to make a profit for the City and the
Developer. This isn't a matter of 'growth'. We have growth in the Rexburg area. We
implore the Commission to manage that growth in a fashion that makes neighborhoods
and communities in the great City of Rexburg a measure of consanguinity, efficiency,
and just simply good planning. To go in and change nine lots out of the Pinebrook 1 and
2 area is not good planning.
6. Any time a developer requests to change the Comprehensive Plan before he can get his
requested zoning is letting him eke a few extra dollars out of his development and a
complete improvisation of detailed planning that the City has tried to do over countless
years through previous Comprehensive Plan hearings and discussions. Yes, our
community is changing with all the growth; however, this should be done in a thoughtful
and detail -minded manner that actually 'plans' where and what we want our
community to be. Anything less would just be capitulating to a developer for nothing
more than his enrichment to the detriment of the existing homeowners.
7. The developer, Todd Webb, told Pinebrook II HOA members that he wanted to change
the zoning and comprehensive plan because he wanted to put "townhomes" on the
existing nine lots. As per the City's own rural zoning code, Mr. Webb and the other
developers listed on your applications could put townhomes on those nine lots, with a
fire wall in between, if the firewall sits on the existing lots' division line as is allowed in
the current zoning. That means Mr. Webb, et al., already has the right under the current
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning to put townhomes on those nine lots if the townhome
sits on one acre (1/2 acre per townhome). We speculate that Mr. Webb only wants to
place more density, double his units on those lots to sell more homes. We are not in
favor of this proposal. Perhaps if this matter is tabled to allow the Developer to develop
a detailed amended Plat first before the zone change is approved this could alleviate
some of our concerns.
8. We found out that what Todd Webb presented to the HOA is irrelevant now because he
said he was buying all nine lots. We now understand that six of the nine are under
contract to a new developer who plans on putting a parallel sewer line and tapping into
the current sewer and water line. This subdivision was planned, engineered and
constructed with ONLY nine homes to be built on those nine lots and no more.
9. What is alarmingly absent is the current Development Agreement, that was a Legal
Contract between the City and Developer in P&Z packet, which has the full force of law
that can guide you in your decision -making on this current application. What was
previously promised? What was guaranteed? And what are the current deficiencies?
This matter should be tabled before the Commission has complete understanding of the
current requirements of the Developer to guide them in any new additional
requirements. We purport that the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Plan are
sufficient and legal for any contract or buyer to rely upon. No changes are required.
10. Furthermore, according to Idaho Code 67-6511 "An amendment of a zoning ordinance
applicable to an owner's lands or approval of conditional rezoning or denial of a request
for rezoning may be subject to the regulatory taking analysis provided for by section 67-
8003, Idaho Code, consistent with the requirements established thereby." This would
give the current homeowners and lot purchasers an alternative to sue the City for the
loss of value to their homes if the P&Z approves these applications.
11. It is unconscionable to allow a developer to change and significantly increase the density
and design of a subdivision at this late hour after all of the other homes have either
been built or lots have been sold. Each resident has purchased a home or lot with a
certain expectation and reliance on what was previously agreed to between the
Developer and the City. This is simply a Developer(s) coming in and squeezing out the
most profit he can with no concern to actual good planning strategies for proper
residential development to only line his pockets, move on to the next existing
community and do it again.
12. We believe the application for the zone change would be "spot -zoning" contrary to
Idaho and Federal law; i.e., well founded, with not only Idaho but United States law to
the contrary that Spot Zoning is illegal. Spot Zoning refers to a change in zoning of a
particular parcel or parcels that is out of character with the surrounding area and the
Comprehensive Plan and is done for the benefit of the particular landowner rather than
for the benefit of the community as a whole. Here there is nothing within a country -
mile that resembles what The Supreme Court has held that:
In Evans, this Court clarified that there are two types of spot zoning. The first type,
referred to as type one spot zoning, "may simply refer to a rezoning of property
for a use prohibited by the original zoning classification." Id. "The test for whether
[type one spot zoning] is valid is whether the zone change is in accord with the
comprehensive plan." Id. at 77, 73 P.3d at 90. "[T]he question of whether a zoning
ordinance is 'in accordance with' the comprehensive plan is a factual question
which can be overturned only where the factual findings are clearly erroneous."
Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 200, 46 P.3d 9, 17
(2002). The second type, referred to as type two spot zoning, "refers to a zone
change that singles out a parcel of land for use inconsistent with the permitted
use in the rest of the zoning district for the benefit of an individual property
owner." Id.
Taylor v. Canyon Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs ("Taylor IP"), 147 Idaho 424, 436, 210 P.3d 532, 544
(2009) (Burdick, J.)).
From the Idaho Land Use Manual, typically relied on as authoritative, "The Supreme Court has
reiterated in Neighbors for the Preservation of the Big and Little Creek Community v. Bd. of Cty.
Comm'rs of Payette Cty., 2015 WL 5655521 (Idaho Sept. 25, 2015) (Horton, J.), the type one/type
two analysis. The Court has clearly settled in on the type one/type two analysis. The analysis
begins by assessing whether the rezone is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. In Neighbors,
the Court said that all that is required to meet the type one test is that the Comprehensive Plan
be amended prior to the rezone to say that the use is permissible. The type two analysis in
Neighbors, the Court observed that the county justified its decision because there were five other
industrial uses within five miles of the rezoned land (CAFOs and a landfill). That was enough to
convince the Court that the County had not singled out this property for special and inconsistent
treatment.
For this application, during your, the Commission's discussion and review, this is clearly not in
conformance with the current Comprehensive Plan because you will have to change it to enable
the current application to LDR2-MDR1. Furthermore, it is a violation of Type 2 "spot zoning"
because it simply singles out the application parcels of land for use inconsistent with the
permitted use in the rest of the Zoning District for the benefit of an individual property owner.
Like the Neighbors decision, the commission can't find that a similar subdivision was less than a
mile away from the applied -for property and the area had filled in with homes. We may have
rights to appeal, causing the City to spend even more time and money for nine lots.
To: The City of Rexburg's City Clerk, Planning and Zoning Committee/Alan Parkinson,
City Council Members
From: Beth Rigby Hendricks
Date: July 20, 2022
Re: Opposition to the (22-00418) - 11 Lots along Hwy 20 in Pine Brook
DIV2 - Comprehensive Plan Map change from Rural to LDR1-
MDR1. A request to change nine (9) of these lots to LDR1-MDR1 earlier
this year was denied (22-00102). The parcels for this request total
6.51 acres. - Todd Webb, Aaron Richards
Opposition to (22-00419) - 11 Lots along Hwy 20 in Pine Brook DIV2 -
Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Low -Density Residential
1 (LDR1)_ Parcels along Hwy 20 were originally LDR1, but when Pine
Brook DIV2 was annexed in 2007 (07-00209), the parcels along Hwy 20
were rezoned to Rural Residential 2 (RR2). A request to change nine
(9) of these lots to Low -Density Residential 2 (LDR2) earlier this year
was denied (22-00103). The parcels for this request total 6.51 acres. -
Todd Webb, Aaron Richards (Action)
I respectfully reject and ask that the Planning and Zoning Committee, City Council Members,
and Alan Parkinson Deny the Rezone Application — File #22-00419 and Comprehensive Plan
Map change Application — File #22-00418 the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan.
Following are the reasons why I am asking for the City to Deny the proposed changes:
1. As you are aware, we already went through this process in April. I appreciated that
Council Member Flora recognized and pointed out to the other Council members that
the, "property owners were informed the lots sizes would be a half -acre. Some of the
homes are still being built and the developer now desires to build twin homes. If the
property owners would have been informed before purchasing a lot that there would be
twin homes in the neighborhood it would be less difficult to decide." (City Council
Minutes, April, 20, 2022, pg. 9) We were told when we were annexed into the City that
those would be half -acre lots and we only agreed to be annexed if the rest of Pine Brook
would stay half -acre lots. I do not agree to allowing the developers to now change those
lot sizes to smaller than one-half acre, causing more foot and vehicle traffic, more
congestion, and more strain on existing resources in the subdivision. I request that
those lots be exactly as currently plated: one-half acre with single homes on each one-
half acre.
2. When the original five homeowners met with the original developer, Mr. Ferney, he told
us he would build a berm by the freeway by the lots now under consideration. That
promise never came to fruition so when we met with these new developers at a
meeting before the P&Z meeting, we told these developers we, as homeowners, would
help them in completing the berm and making a sound and vehicle barrier. We would
help them in areas such as marketing the homes, use of large moving equipment,
manhours and one person even said we should all donate a small amount of money,
which would amount to a good amount of money, to bring in dirt and create a nice
sound barrier by the freeway. This should have alleviated the developers concerns
about selling those homes. They will be like the rest of the homes in Pine Brook 2 and
with the growth at the University, these homes would be very desirable for faculty and
staff moving to this area. We told these developers that we understood that it may be
more difficult to sell those one-half acre homes by the freeway, but we were willing to
help. We weren't going to just leave them trying to sell those homes and build the berm
on their own. We were, and still are, willing to help. This is a subdivision of residents
who have resources to help but we need the developers to respect our request and
wishes too: keep all the lots as one-half acre with single homes on each lot.
3. An actual plan, plat change application or proposal is conspicuously absent. One major
concern is that changing the zoning from RR2 to the LDR1 would significantly change the
density and engineering and types of uses going from a Zoning limiting development of
acre (21780 sq ft) to lots as small as 8,000 sq ft. and 10,000 sq. ft for a duplex and two
5,000 sq ft. lots for a twin home in a LDR1 zone. This Zone could exponentially increase
the density the Developer(s) is allowed for the property solely that the Developer may
increase the number of residences into our community, at his great profit and the
homeowners and the City's loss. Additionally, different types of uses are allowed in this
LDR1 zone. A required Plat Change Application should be presented by the Developer
for the Planning and Zoning Commission to know what is actually planned to happen
before the Commission should act. Once the zoning is given, a Developer has a legal
right to do anything allowable in that zone and it can't be undone. This Application will
not meet the Goals of the Rexburg Comprehensive Plan. See b. below'
4. Increased density wasn't initially planned for or built by the original developer as
required and approved by the City. This subdivision was planned, engineered and
constructed with ONLY nine homes to be built on those eleven lots and no more. The
developer is now seeking to alter this plan.
1 Comprehensive Plan Goals include
a. To improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities -to make it more functional, beautiful, decent,
healthful, interesting, and efficient.
b. To promote the public interest, the interest of the community at large, rather than the interests of individuals or special groups within the
community.
c. To facilitate the democratic determination and implementation of community policies on the physical development.
d. To affect the political and technical coordination in community development.
e. To inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions.
f. To bring professional and technical knowledge to bear on the making of political decisions concerning the physical development of the
community.
g. To maintain high levels of interaction with the public for planning and decision -making. Encourage citizen input when considering code
modifications.
5. Before this change should even be considered or evaluated by the Commission to
account for this density increase, an Engineered Impact Study detailing the increased
sewer flow, traffic, stormwater runoff should be completed. According to Idaho Code
67-6511(2)(a) "Particular consideration shall be given to the effects of any proposed
zone change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public
services." With this increased flow in our community that was built and zoned with the
current allowable density, are we assured that the one lift station for the entire
subdivision is capable of collecting and pumping the increased flow? Furthermore, the
Comprehensive Plan states, "Explore the possibility of requesting area studies to be
prepared by developers showing the relationship of the subdivision to the
neighborhood of which it is a part. Access to the general street system, school,
recreation sites, and other facilities and services should be shown." Pg. 120. This
application hasn't conformed to the Comprehensive Plan's goal to bring professional
and technical knowledge to assist Planning and Zoning Decisions.
6. There is a very large and deep pond in the subdivision. What is the greater probability of
more children and adults drowning in the pond? Placing additional foot traffic of kids
walking down the upper part of Larch Drive is a significant risk because that
Development was never planned for sidewalks or to handle a lot of foot traffic. Is the
City willing to take on this increased liability? The Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals
also states, "Ensure safety in and accessibility between all residential areas." The
Application does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan's Goal to make the PineBrook
Subdivision 'make it more functional, beautiful, decent, healthful, interesting, and
efficient.'
7. We believe the application for the zone change would be "spot -zoning" contrary to
Idaho and Federal law; i.e., well founded, with not only Idaho but United States law to
the contrary that Spot Zoning is illegal. Spot Zoning refers to a change in zoning of a
particular parcel or parcels that is out of character with the surrounding area and the
Comprehensive Plan and is done for the benefit of the particular landowner rather than
for the benefit of the community as a whole. Pinebrook is surrounded by nothing that
resembles what the Developer is proposing. The Supreme Court has held:
In Evans, this Court clarified that there are two types of spot zoning. The first type,
referred to as type one spot zoning, "may simply refer to a rezoning of property
for a use prohibited by the original zoning classification." Id. "The test for whether
[type one spot zoning] is valid is whether the zone change is in accord with the
comprehensive plan." Id. at 77, 73 P.3d at 90. "[T]he question of whether a zoning
ordinance is 'in accordance with' the comprehensive plan is a factual question
which can be overturned only where the factual findings are clearly erroneous."
Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 200, 46 P.3d 9, 17
(2002). The second type, referred to as type two spot zoning, "refers to a zone
change that singles out a parcel of land for use inconsistent with the permitted
use in the rest of the zoning district for the benefit of an individual property
owner." Id.
Taylor v. Canyon Cty. Bd. of Commis ("Taylor 11"), 147 Idaho 424, 436, 210 P.3d 532,
544 (2009) (Burdick, J.)).
From the Idaho Land Use Manual, typically relied on as authoritative, "The Supreme Court
has reiterated in Neighbors for the Preservation of the Big and Little Creek Community v.
Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Payette Cty., 2015 WL 5655521 (Idaho Sept. 25, 2015) (Horton, J.),
the type one/type two analysis." The Court has clearly settled in on the type one/type
two analysis. The analysis begins by assessing whether the rezone is in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan. In Neighbors, the Court said that all that is required to meet the
type one test is that the Comprehensive Plan be amended prior to the rezone to say that
the use is permissible. The type two analysis in Neighbors, the Court observed that the
county justified its decision because there were five other industrial uses within five miles
of the rezoned land (CAFOs and a landfill). That was enough to convince the Court that
the County had not singled out this property for special and inconsistent treatment.
For this application, during your, the Commission's discussion and review, this is clearly
not in conformance with the current Comprehensive Plan because you will have to change
it to enable the current application to LDR2 and for the reasons set forth in this letter.
Furthermore, this application is a violation of Type 2 "spot zoning" and the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan because it simply singles out the application parcels of land for use
inconsistent with the permitted use in the rest of the Zoning District for the benefit of an
individual property owner. Like the Neighbors decision, the commission can't find that a
similar LDR2 zone is less than a mile away from the applied for property in PineBrook that
has already been filled in with homes.
8. Was proper notice supplied in this case? Idaho Code 67-6509 clearly states, "The
planning or planning and zoning commission, prior to recommending the plan,
amendment, or repeal of the plan to the governing board... The commission shall also
make available a notice to other papers, radio and television stations serving the
jurisdiction for use as a public service announcement. Notice of intent to adopt, repeal
or amend the plan shall be sent to all political subdivisions providing services within the
planning jurisdiction, including school districts and the manager or person in charge of
the local public airport, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing scheduled by
the commission." Based upon these requirements, we hope that all of this happened
because several homeowners said they have expressed concerns about what is actually
being proposed. Regardless of the public notices for making these types of changes,
there has been a tremendous amount of miscommunication to the homeowners and
property owners.
9. What is also absent from the documents I received is the current Development
Agreement, that is the current and binding Legal Contract between the City and
Developer for the P&Z to consider, which has the full force of law that can guide you
and us in your decision -making on this current application and a further goal of the
Comprehensive Plan. This matter should be tabled so that the Commission has complete
understanding of the current requirements of the Developer to guide them in any new
additional requirements. We purport that the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Plan are sufficient and legal for any contractor or buyer to rely upon. No changes are
required for Pinebrook 2. Is there additional land being considered to be developed and
annexed into the City? It appears that water and sewer have already been extended
across 12th West. If so, what is the purpose of extending these services?
10. 1 do not agree with the Comprehensive Plan Map Application and Zoning Change
because we have bought this property and placed our home knowing that the
Comprehensive Plan had a current zoning of Rural. It appears we have detrimentally
relied on this understanding if these changes can occur so simply and with a developer's
desires. We believe the City should not consider this change in a new subdivision that is
almost completely built out. These new changes will devalue our homes, increase
significantly the number of people that walk and drive our streets, and increase the
density of homes. This request is an example of Land Speculators changing what has
already been planned. We implore the Commission to manage that growth in a fashion
that makes neighborhoods and communities in the great City of Rexburg a measure of
consanguinity, efficiency, and just simply use good planning. To go in and change nine
lots out of the built -out Pinebrook 1 and 2 area, piecemeal, is not good planning that
would single out the Developer's interests, against those of the Community as a whole
and contrary to the Comprehensive Plan
11. Any time a developer requests to change the Comprehensive Plan before he can get his
requested zoning is letting him save a few extra dollars out of his development and a
complete contradiction of detailed planning that the City has tried to do over countless
years through previous Comprehensive Plan hearings and discussions. Yes, our
community is changing with all the growth; however, this should be done in a thoughtful
and detail -minded manner that actually 'plans' where and what we want our
community to be and not allowing developers to fit square pegs into round holes.
Anything less would just be capitulating to a developer for nothing more than his
enrichment to the detriment of the existing homeowners.
12. In a RR2 zone that requires % acre lots, the Developer would currently have to build nice
single-family homes. If the Developer gets the applied for Zone LDR1 as he has
requested, he could then put homes on less than %2 acre. I ascertain that these
developers only want the changes so that they may place more homes, and double or
triple their residence units on those lots. I am not in favor of this proposal. The
Developer(s) has stated that they haven't been able to sell the parcels because they are
along the highway. But it is obvious that these parcels have only been for sale as a
group deal and not for individual sale. Perhaps if this matter is tabled to allow the
Developer(s) to complete a detailed amended Plat first before the zone change is
approved, this could alleviate some of my concerns. As is contemplated as a housing
goal in the Comprehensive Plan, "In existing neighborhoods, consider options for
compatible, quality design consistent with existing character. Design standards may be
considered in areas where design compatibility may have an impact on quality of
neighborhoods."
13. Furthermore according to Idaho Code 67-6511 "An amendment of a zoning ordinance
applicable to an owner's lands or approval of conditional rezoning or denial of a request
for rezoning may be subject to the regulatory taking analysis provided for by section 67-
8003, Idaho Code, consistent with the requirements established thereby." This would
give the current homeowners and lot purchasers an alternative to pursue recourse
against the City for the loss of value to their homes after they bought homes as short as
two months ago and are now surprised by the proposed Applications.
14. It is unconscionable to allow a Developer to change and significantly increase the
density and design of a subdivision at this late hour after all of the other homes have
either been built or lots have been sold. Each resident has purchased a home or lot with
a certain expectation and reliance on what was previously agreed upon between the
Developer and the City. This is simply a Developer(s) coming in and squeezing out the
most profit he can with no concern to actual good planning strategies for proper
residential development to only line his pockets, move on to the next existing
community and do it again. As one of the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan
states that Developments, "To promote the public interest, the interest of the
community at large, rather than the interests of individuals or special groups within the
community."
Beth Rigby Hendricks ,
i
i
Homeowners requesting rejection and denial of City of Rexburg's Rezone Application — File #22-00103
Comprehensive Plan Map Change Application — File #22-00102 and
Printed Name Email Telephone Address
'Q ► .0 F� D P�j xlG.� U 0V _ Signature
i
ow
ri
0 Y1c�t�.Co�r�,Lrr1%. "
R 4L-i Nent'Jr;
} �� t ks 1, �; -a0,- �
rK ;� L 1
w
'3J.1[,, j,;l'la
e hz �f; �c.v►h�1,m� ��Yi321.rp zo6 - ',t3 -32.11 a26
l�':�;�� W ��``�' �. �'U�' � "t�-` -t C' �� 1 'i y,,t �r, %�G�V"►-�i �iG�/�Zi
�SII46V G1�
F
I m ,CC,M L� '
Homeowners requesting rejection and denial of City of Rexburg's Rezone Application — File #22-00103 and
Comprehensive Plan Map Change Application — File #22-00102
Printed Name Email ✓ei.�c�G
t Telephone Address Signature `
-Hot 1C61t1L'lYit I2Xk�cl rv%-i�A1 r '
� 1 fi
vkAi I- cz;v, 7 LM
r{ �� 1� 3s. 112'I GYC'l'Y)Sitli..- � .
v - 'I t • C Gry� S - Li i .?.
(iJZ"'7GI
(1At
� 5Ct01�1 r;;►' c '�s �C� t I �l Z C�� eery s� d �}
LO l -1
a i ca�������� � :�5n ; � �� -3 ;� -�7c' 9i �• c�� [,��ti �=`,i
n �, ►'� car VV� �tit �acl��e�irs,vr; �4Cv� Yv - qa�57 -55i14U[r n �5 3
v)°CI-?�2(�Z 1111 Cc`,,S-hc Riles
n Corr
(�.,C�
32j.Co� �
1
3,3 spy r Gflq Gs G°'�°
7
�. z •26I��s ,
f� c0� a Z CYpl1t
) -qq q
70
Lae �lac�e�� laccy-Iarscn�Ayahoa.com �� -�l�t -yob I ; `Ilo� PIu Ln .
h, t� CctE Mtn n �.
A r _ r
• - iLc -3 4 Z 8 at I't.
(Ail' �C �b(,K h"kt` 41sl. l JY\f .01M
281 W. Moody Road
Rexburg ID 83440-5166
farns123Cawahoo.com
208-227-8604
5 March 2022
City of Rexburg
Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission
PO Box 280
Rexburg ID 83440
To: The Commissioners
recently received a letter, "Proposed Rezone from Transitional Agriculture to Medium -Density
Residential 1. 1 live across the street from this property.
I have some questions and I would like a written reply before the meeting on 17 March 2022.
--Medium Density Residential 1. How many residential units cold live on this property?
--How would they be heated? Electric, natural gas, oil, propane?
--What about sewer and water lines. Who would take care of that? Who would pay for it?
--Would neighbors be required to hook up to these extra services?
--We know that additional traffic will be part of this change.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Gary Farnsworth
June 29, 2021
Rexburg Mayor & City Council
35 N. 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
RE: Rezoning of 301 South 121 West Property from RR2 to LDRI, LDR2 & LDR3
Dear Mayor Jerry Merrill & City Councilors Pres. Jordan Busby, Brad Wolfe, Mikel Walker, Tisha Flora,
Chris Mann, and Bryanna Johnson:
I have lived at 1125 Widdison Lane in Rexburg, ID for over 43 years. Our neighborhood was annexed
into the city of Rexburg in 2002. In 2003, the Rexburg Development Plan was modified to include Rural
Residential I (RRI) and Rural Residential 2 (RR2) designations. The area where I live was then
designated as RRI. In 2003, the area directly south of me was annexed and mostly designated as RR2, but
with a small portion designated as RRI.
After the 2003 annexation, the Willowbrook Subdivision was developed on the southern end of the RR2
land. This is a stable country subdivision which has '/2 acre lots, allowing people to have large lawns and
gardens. I would be very pleased if the remainder of the area south of me was developed similar to
Willowbrook, in accordance with the current zoning designation.
At the June 24, 2021 Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission Meeting, the Commission voted to
recommend that the zoning designation of a 25% acre portion of the land between my neighborhood and
the Willowbrook Subdivision be changed from RR2; with 11'/z acres being designated as LDRI, 10 acres
as LDR2, and 4 acres as LDR3.
I attended and provided input at the P&Z meeting as did several other people who currently live near the
land for which the zoning change was proposed. All were against the proposed zoning change. The only
testimony supporting the change came from the developer, Brent Anderson.
I strongly disagree with the ruling of the P&Z Commission. Rexburg needs more areas where people can
have larger lots. Subdivisions like Willowbrook are definitely an asset to the city and, I believe, there is a
demand for larger lots.
My neighborhood, and Willowbrook, are enjoyable and pleasant places to live and raise a family. I see no
need to change the zoning designation. In 2003, there was a reason for the RR2 classification of this area,
and I have not heard any reasonable arguments for changing it other than increasing the land value for the
developer. Previous attempts were made in 2007, 2010 and 2021 to change the designation from RR2 and
they were all rejected.
I strongly urge the City Council to also reject this zoning change proposal. Thank you for your service
and consideration of this issue. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brent G. Harris
1125 Widdison Lane
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208-932-5508
January 24, 2020
To whom it may concern,
We would like to start with a quote from one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson,
"The Government is the servant, not the master, of the people." we start with this quote to put
some perspective on the project, LID 49, the City of Rexburg is proposing to start this year. Our
major complaints and protests and objections of this project are the excessive expense, the failure
to notify residents in sufficient time and disproportionate requirements.
Anytime a government official thinks of spending taxpayer money they should be very
careful and considerate of what they are spending the money for. Is it necessary and would it be
to the benefit of the people they serve? The people pay taxes to help maintain and improve the
city. We do not begrudge the City of Rexburg of wanting to improve city and residential
sidewalks. However, to put the burden of cost on the residents who already pay taxes seems a
poor choice and poor management of taxed funds.
With LID 49, not only is the City of Rexburg putting the burden on the citizen for a City
project, the City is overburdening the citizens with an overpriced project with the threat of a lien
on resident's homes if residents cannot come up with the money on your timeline. This lien
makes citizens a servant to the City. Thomas Jefferson said, "Tyranny is defined as that which is
legal for the government but illegal for the citizens." There is no way we could legally go up to
someone's home and notify them that we are doing an unwanted project on their property and
demand they pay us an overpriced amount. In addition to this, if they do not pay us in cash, we
would put a lien on their home and force them to pay interest until the debt, we are forcing them
into is paid. We are responsible people. We do not go into debt for unnecessary purchases and
when we have a large purchase we need to make we wait until we have saved up enough money
to avoid getting loans or getting it on credit. Forcing responsible citizens to spend 10%-30% of
their yearly income with only a couple of months' notice of the project and to force them to take
out a lien, hurting our credit scores for seven years, is irresponsible and oppressive of the City.
When you force a resident to become indebted to you, you are forcing them to become a servant.
The City of Rexburg has had ample time to prepare for this project. It has likely been in
the works for many years. Some of the residents of Park Street saw City workers measuring the
sidewalks and driveways last fall. The City had plentiful time to inform residents of this
upcoming project to give them time to receive their own bids from private contractors and
prepare to afford such a large, expensive project. The City failed to give residents sufficient time
to plan or budget for this project. Some residents received notice of this project on January 18`h
(Some residents didn't receive a notice until January 27`h), telling them the City is planning to
vote on this project on February 5`h. Within those two full weeks, the Engineers in charge of the
project were sent out of town for a conference leaving the residents less time to get questions
answered. The timing of the notification also prevents residents from getting their own contractor
bids because of the snow on the ground. No contractor can give an accurate bid without being
able to see what they need to do.
Another complaint we have about the LID 49 project is the excessive requirements. The
City is requiring the residents to lose one foot of our personal property, plus the additional 4
square yard bumpout behind each mailbox. The ADA sidewalk width requirements are as
follows:
January 24, 2020
"The minimum width for an ADA-compliant sidewalk is 36 inches (3 feet), though
sidewalks can be constructed wider than this. If sidewalks are less than 60 inches (5
feet) across, passing spaces must be constructed at set intervals. These passing spaces
must measure at least 60 inches on all sides, and must be located at least every 200
feet."
The five-foot requirement, plus bumpout, is excessive, more expensive and encroaches on
private property. The City is requiring more than what is necessary at the expense of its
residents. The City should be fighting for the residents and determining what is absolutely
necessarily, not requiring residents to make excessive and needless changes. Forcing residents
to lose one linear fact, and more, of property without any thought of compensation is unlawful.
We vote for City Representatives to protect us and serve the people in ways that
benefit and help us. We did not vote to make excessive changes that costs residents thousands
of dollars (on top of the taxes we already pay) and costing our family a large amount of our
yearly income. Many of the Park Street resident we have spoken to are wondering how they
are going to pay for LID 49 and are fearful of this LID and the consequences of losing their
homes to foreclosure for something they cannot afford, which the City is forcing them to pay
for. As the days go on and residents find out more about the LID 49 project, the changes in
estimates, the inaccurate/discrepancies in measurements of properties, the city engineers
being out of town during a crucial time for residents, all point to a poorly managed and poorly
planned LID. How can any self-respecting representative vote for such a poorly put together
Plan?
Before voting on LID 49, please consider our letter of complaint and take note that we
protest and object the inclusion of Park Street in LID 49. Please consider what kind of
government representative you truly want to be. Bringing undue burden upon the residents,
making them become the servants through debts/liens, and putting unnecessary requirements
that makes a resident lose any amount of personal property without sufficient time to prepare
and without compensation for the property lost is oppressive. Again, the City of Rexburg is
not the master of its residents, the City of Rexburg is the servant of the people. The residents
of the City of Rexburg should not feel fear for any thing you would vote into place, for,
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people,
there is liberty."
— Thomas Jefferson
Sincerely,
�c
Benjamin and Rachel Luthi
635 Park St.
Rexburg, ID
►e� llle r --- R�CF1V��? JAN 2 9 2020
Name:
Address/Lot #:
To whom it may concern.
As a property owner of Park Street, Rexburg, ID, I object to being included in LID 49. 1 respectfully that
my property ?--0J; 51 r V rs-and Park Street be excluded at
this time. I protest for the following reasons
The short time line and the inequitable price compared to property values.
Lack of adequate information being available to make an informed decision.
Commercial property, residential property and railroad property being lumped in together
additional Reasoning:
Sign
RECErvr7p JAN 1 9 1020
Charlie James Jones
4427 E 275 N
Rigby, ID 83442
To whom it may concern.
1 /29/2020
As a property owner of Park Street, Rexburg, ID, I object to being included in LID 49. 1 respectfully ask
that my property at 553 Park Street, Rexburg, ID 83440 and Park Street be excluded at this time.
I protest for the following reasons;
The short time line and the inequitable price compared to property values.
Lack of adequate information being available to make an informed decision.
Commercial property, residential property and railroad property being lumped together in one LID.
additional Reasoning:
- information showing what is being improved in all areas is not available.
- The city engineer is unavailable to answer questions until after the meeting
- the proposed plan only shows all repairs being applied to Park Street — 5'" west to Seagull Dr
Respectfully
dA
Charlie J. Jones
Name: Kenneth and Karen England
Address/Item #: 625 Park Street/28
To Whom It May Concern:
As a property owner of Park Street, Rexburg, ID, I object to
being included in LID 49. I respectfully ask that my property
and Park Street be excluded at this time.
I protest for the following reasons:
1. The short time line and the inequitable price compared to
property values.
2. Lack of adequate information being available to make an
informed decision.
3. Commercial property, residential property and railroad
property being lumped together in one LID.
Kenneth C. England
Karen England
RECErvEp JAN 2 9 2o20
January 28, 2020
To Whom It May Concern,
A month or so ago The City of Rexburg repaired a leak in the main water line in front of my house
cutting the driveway, curb and gutter away on the west driveway. They filled it with gravel and left for
the winter. My plan was to repair whatever was left in the spring. Suddenly a probable bill of
$6,651.78 comes in the mail declaring that I am responsible for everything out front including the street
of all things.
Shock set in and I have not been able to sleep since meeting with two nice men, Joel Gray and Eric
Parker yesterday at the city offices. It amazes me that the new (wide) sidewalk I installed upon moving
to this new residence is now found to be non-ADA (Disability) compliant because it isn't perfectly
level, believe me, few sidewalks are. This work was totally inspected, gravel and all, by one of your
own, Quinton, I believe at the time.
The property line on CEP's map is off to the west by about six feet. I don't own any of Park Place's
property as indicated. The driveway skirt is wider than it needs to be. Eric Parker has good photos of
the skirt and the cracked 1978 sidewalk on the west end. The rest is good. The city engineer, Joel,
judged that the junipers out front are just fine and won't be an issue.
Please note that:
The gutter out front was broken and patched by a city worker driving something like a plow a
few winters ago.
The city floods the street much of the year with water from the sprinklers on the island out
front.
Moss and mold therefore grows in the gutter all summer because out front is a low spot with
incomplete drainage.
L.I.D. #49 sounds like a great project to me. My intent with this letter is to share my insights with the
powers that be and not to complain, protest, or object as your letter suggests are the only options. I will
pay my part, but would not like to go hog wild by tearing out what is good or to pay based on improper
property lines. The concept that a sidewalk can't slant more than the thickness of a string has me
puzzled.
Thanks for the offer of a ten year loan, but no thanks. I wouldn't want a lien on the property either.
If I can save quite a bit I would like to go on record as wanting to take care of the sidewalk and skirt
myself. It's called self-reliance.
Sincerely,
\, �,, °�
J seph L. Alldredge
261 East Main Street
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
208-359-1365
January 28, 2020
City Clerk, City of Rexburg
RE: Protest of LID 49
Name: La Dean Hilton
Address: 546 Park Street
I received my LID 49 Assessment yesterday and am writing to protest. I request that Park Street be
removed from LID 49. I do not wish to participate.
I am a widow living alone on an extremely limited income. I have trouble making ends meet every month.
There is no way I could ever pay for these repairs. And I do not want a lien placed on my home. I do not
have much equity. I want my adult children, who also can barely make ends meet, to be able to sell my
home when the time comes so that what little equity remains can help them with their bills.
Thank you for understanding my situation,
La Dean Hilton
546 Park St.
La Dean Hilton
RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2020
30 January 2020
To Whom It May Concern,
Thank you for receiving me so cordially in the city offices beginning with a phone call on 20 January
and ending with visits to wonderful officials the past few days. I support what the city does in the best
interest of the community. Please do not use my name or cause to be printed in the newspaper any of
my communications with the city engineers, map makers, or fmancial persons. I fmd you to be
personally and professionally reputable as well as all city employees and contractors. Please ignore my
previous communications, make any corrections you feel are fair, and leave my name out of city
council meetings all together. My intent was to assist the process not to thwart city progress. I no
longer desire to have anything to do with replacing cement anywhere due to ADA demands or LID
#49. I am your humble servant. I agree to pay what you assess at the end of the process. I desire no
further communications. My nerves can't take it any more. It's not your fault. I will not attend city
council meeting. Please make any ideas I presented, your own, before presenting them to anyone if
you agree in principle and claim full credit for any insights that may have been helpful.
S' erely,
J seph L. Alldredge
261 East Main Street
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
208-359-1365
Name:
Address/Lot #:_ 5� 1 Per-L S�p f- J`` ,44 .,, r'a A) 63—YW)
To whom it may concern.
As a property owner of Park Street, Rexburg, ID, I object to being included in LID 49. 1 respectfully ask
that my property -5-6) P'r� Skd- and Park Street be excluded
at this time.
I protest for the following reasons;
The short time line and the inequitable price compared to property values.
Lack of adequate information being available to make an informed decision.
Commercial property, residential property and railroad property being lumped together in one LID.
additional Reasoning:
Signature
January 30, 2020
Rexburg City Council,
As a property owner on Park Street in Rexburg, I am writing to formally object to
the proposed LID 49 and ask that my property and all of Park Street be excluded.
After reading both of the city letters to me I have lots of questions and lots of
objections:
*the costs for Park Street are considerably higher than what has been levied in
other neighborhoods in the past.
*the information sent is inadequate and hard to decipher.
*not nearly enough time to consider privately contracting my part, especially with
everything being currently covered in snow.
*the poor design presented, I have no desire to have a mailbox and a cement
semicircle in the middle of my yard. It makes more sense to have boxes grouped
together (as mine currently is) and at the edges of the yards.
*My sidewalk and driveway are in good condition and I should not have to pay to
replace them.
*1 do not have the financial resources to pay for this and having a lien put on my
house is extremely undesirable.
*1 do not believe that we should be lumped together with commercial, railroad
and city property.
Gary and Chimene Benson
620 Park St
Rexburg, Idaho
Nathan and Jessica Bradfield
456 East 2^° South
Rexburg, Idaho, 83440
(208) 360-3510
bradfieldfamily@gmail.com
1/14/2020
City of Rexburg
35 North 1st East,
Rexburg, ID 83440
To Whom It May Concern:
We recently received our final bill from the City of Rexburg pertaining to the LID 48 assessment. We
are formally submitting our concerns related to this assessment and subsequent improvement.
Previously we informally contacted several individuals from the city regarding this issue: Joel Gray,
Brett, Keith and City Council member Tisha Flora.
As part of this assessment and improvement our curbing and gutters were laid in August 2019. Our
neighbor (who is willing to give comment if needed: Shannon Hamilton 208-403-1403) noticed the
concrete workers laid sidewalk curbing in front of our garage, instead of sloping the concrete for a
driveway. Reportedly, after profanity from the workers and yelling from management to the
workers, they then "fixed" the gutters so they would slope into the driveway. When we returned
home to review the concrete work, we noticed a large crack with pitting and crumbling already
occurring. We then notified city professionals of our concern.
We are not engineers nor concrete workers, but the difference with this and even our neighbors
curbing is significant. When discussed, Brett said he would have them "patch" it. The patch work
was never done. At one point, Keith looked at the curbing (according to Tisha). Keith reportedly said
they will recheck again in the spring to figure out if they need to redo/warranty our cement. We
have nothing in writing from the engineering department related to these responses.
We do not want to pay for a job which is either incomplete or poorly finished. We have very basic
standards regarding construction work. These standards were not met this past summer. With a
simple patch we are concerned it will continue to quickly deteriorate to our original gutter, which
we were forced by the city to replace. We also fear the following: if we do pay our bill, nothing will
be done regarding our concerns.
City of Rexburg
1/14/2020
Page 2
This letter is to notify the Rexburg Engineering Department and the City Council of said issues in
writing. We appreciate all the time and hard work that is put forth to complete these projects.
Sincerely,
Jessica and Nathan Bradfield
C 0-8 / 1 a J-�Jd
1 ' � �•,
asaa9l
3
Property Address: 451 East 2"d South
Item#67
To whom it may concern,
The cement work completed at my property this summer was not done properly and I do
not agree that I should pay the sum required until the cement is corrected. When the company put
down the cement, there was a wooden frame left between the fresh cement and the cement that
was already there. Because of this, there is a large gap between the cement on either side of this
wooden framing. This is not acceptable. I have no problem paying for upgrades to my property
of this nature, but I do require that it be done correctly so that I do not have to pay for it to be
redone in a year when the snow melts and I am left with damaged cement that was in worse
condition than before. I have left numerous messages with Joel Gray through his assistant
Brandy and never heard back. I even contacted the company that laid the cement and also
received no response. I do not feel that it is asking too much for this mistake to be corrected
before payment is required.
Thank you,
Jason and Shannon Hamilton
January 8, 2020
City of Rexburg
Noah Phethean
Joel Gray
PO Box 280
Rexburg, Id 83440
Concerns of Property Assessment
317 W 2nd N
Rexburg, ID
Item 11
It was my understanding that any parts of the beautification project would be completed as the original
property existed. Following are the concerns of where this has not been the case.
• Circular Drive. East side is now 9" narrower than original. When pouring cement, driveway and
sidewalk were not poured at the same time. Driveway cracked when sidewalk was dug up and
they fixed the issue by cutting a 17"x28" section and poured new cement. This was not seam to
seam. It is less than appealing.
• Circular Drive. West side is now 7" narrower than original. With both of these entrance's
smaller than original, larger vehicles now drive off one side or the other. This will continue to
wear down the new drive along with damaging the grass.
• Lawn and sprinkler system. New sod and sprinklers were installed on this property in June of
2018. Each area was set up in its own quadrant for watering. Quadrant 1 was made unusable
when they dug up the front section of the property. Thus resulting in the new sod to die. The
sprinklers were replaced and dirt hauled in, but no sod has been replaced. The entire section
will have to be replaced to bring the lawn back to its original form. We will now need to
purchase 2 pallets of sod to replace, plus the cost of installation.
• Sidewalks. I would like to reference Municipal Code 12.01.060 "Reconstruction"
Whenever there is a major street reconstruction (which includes, but is not limited to.
Replacement of curb, gutter or asphalt overlay) then the adjoining lot owner shall be required to
install sidewalks, IF SUCH ARE NOT ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. Since sidewalks were on the
property, I fail to see where I am responsible for the replacement cost. I would assume the city
should be responsible for this cost.
Last I did not receive communication about this project, until a notice was taped to my front
door on May 17' that this project would commence on May 20th. When I called in and asked
about this I was told a letter had been sent. A new replacement notice was left on my door the
next week, not the official notice they say was mailed but a rundown of costs to my property. A
notice was included in the copy that I claimed I had not received the previous information. I
don't make a habit of claiming false information and am sure this was written in to cover any
concerns I may have had. I was referred to the City Attorney. I have no problems with the city
trying to improve the look of Rexburg, however, I do feel that as a tax paying citizen the
property should be replaced in the same manner as it was. I do look forward to any comments
you may have to this information and do not feel that my replacement was done in the manner
as expected. Therefore I do not believe I am liable for the amount you are expecting for me to
pay.
I can be reached during business hours at my office. My direct line is 200-359-1076 and am
happy to discuss or learn of any misinformation I am be under. I feel these are legitimate
concerns and would appreciate your response in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Kristy Coy
317W2N
Rexburg, ID 83440
CC: Gage Hart Zobell
Attorney
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Salt Lake City, UT
1
Written Testimony of
David B. Klingler residing at 25 East Moran View Road, Rexburg, Idaho 83440
For Public Hearing about NORTH CENTRAL URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
To be held Wednesday, November 18, 2020
1. A new way needs to be devised for notification of Citizens affected by
public works. Publication in the newspaper does not adequately inform the
public of Public Notices when a majority of the public does not subscribe to
the publication. Property owners in the affected area should be notified by
mail and this should be proposed and enacted by new law.
2. The residents affected by the NORTH CENTRAL URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
were not able to vote for the public officials enforcing implementation of
this public works project. The Rexburg Urban Renewal Agency is a private
organization in which the citizens could not vote for the management.
Those affected could only vote for the Madison County Commissioners and
it is not stipulated how they play a part in this project.
3. Citizens DO NOT want to receive bills from the City of Rexburg for City
Fees, Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Utility Changes, Water, and Sewer hook-up at
the completion of the NORTH CENTRAL URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT!
4. Disappointment that the plan was not published and available for review
prior to the hearing.
5. Using only the newspaper publication of the NORTH CENTRAL URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT points A to V of the plan proposal is the following
commentary on those points:
A. Storm Drains means residents will have to pay for curb and gutter.
B. Buy Rights of way or if not possible condemn land and take from land
owner.
C. Sth West Bridge and Hibbard US 20 Overpass to Moody Road Major traffic
problems for land owners and this only benefits the business Walmart.
D. Public utilities of water and sewer installed and burying of current utilities
of power, gas, fiber optic cable, cable television, along with covering
existing ditches and canals. What will be the cost to land owners for
burying utilities to their properties?!
E. Additional provision for "street scapes" including plazas, benches, bike
racks, and works of public art. Some of these items should be donated by
private citizens, businesses, or industry —NOT publicly funded! This
"street scaping" must refer to what happened to the now parking lot
formerly known as Center Street. That project was only supposed to cost
$400,000 but ended up costing $1.75 MILLION DollarsM The extra $1.3
MILLION Dollars was WASTED on STREET SCAPINGM! This money would
have paid for 43 resident land owners to have sidewalk, curb, gutter, and
be hooked into city water and sewer!!! How much is currently spent on
landscape maintenance and fire pillars for this ONE BLOCK SECTION of
City Street that is now a parking lot with fewer spaces than prior to
remodel?M This money could be better spent to repair roads in town
and remove snow in the winter!!!!
F. Once again need to acquire property and condemn if necessary taking
from land owners who may choose not to participate in the project.
G. Property for Street Scapes and underground utilities. Will this be extra
property acquired by purchase or condemned from land owners?
H. After acquisition, the need to sell unnecessary property not used in the
project. Where will these funds be accounted for?
I. Demolition of buildings for rights of way and public health and safety.
How will this impact current land owners who have farm related
buildings?
J. Management of properties acquired for the project by renting, gifting, or
selling. How will this be administered and buy whom and where will the
funds be accounted for?
K. Development of lands for private enterprise and to attract businesses to
our area. This is essentially bribing companies to come here! If there is
money for this —there can be money provided that land owner residents
DO NOT PAY FOR ANY CITY IMPROVEMENTS AFFECTING THEIR
PROPERTIES!!!
3
L. Construction of 5th West Bridge and Moody Road US 20 Overpass. How
much money will each of these projects cost? How involved will the state
of Idaho Transportation Department be with construction on US 20 and
will additional state funding contribute to this work?
M. Municipal buildings in the area. Will there be a new fire station or police
station or city annex building in the area? Is there a need for this?
N. Again a provision to bride businesses to come to the area. This money
could pay for improvements so that LAND OWNERS ARE NOT BILLED TO
BECOME PART OF THE CITY OF REXBURG!!!
O. Financing of housing subdivisions. If provision is made for new
subdivisions to have curb, gutter, sidewalk, sewer, and water —money can
also be SPENT FOR CURRENT LAND OWNER RESIDENTS TO NOW HAVE TO
PAY FOR THESE SERVICES.
P. Rehabilitation of current owner properties and structures. This indicates
that current land owners will be required to put in sidewalks, curbs,
gutters, and hook into city water and sewer. WHO WILL PAY THE COST
FOR THIS? THE PROJECT OR PRIVATE LAND OWNER INDIVIDUALS?
Q. Prepare commercial sites for business. Once again if money is to be spent
for businesses who come to the area so that they do not have to pay for
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and hook into city water and sewer or road
paving —then MONEY CAN PAY FOR THE SAME SERVICES FOR THE
CURRENT RESIDENT LAND OWNERS IN THE PROJECT AREA!
R. Zoning for public parks and spaces. While this is nice and necessary —
please see above point E. that public money should not be wastes for
extremes, luxuries, and extravagances! M Private business and citizens
should be invited to help fund "park soaping"
S. City funding of design and resources for the project. How much is the
total projected cost of this project? One document that was reviewed
indicated $582 MILLION Dollars? This is a half a BILLION Dollars in today's
value. How much more will be needed to complete the project in the
future?!
T. Lend or give funds for development. Once again if money can be
available for inviting commerce to the area —A can PAY FOR THE
4
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENT LAND
OWNERS IN THE PROJECT AREA!
U. Relocation of displaced residents because of the project. How many
residents will this affect? Will they be given appropriate compensation
for their displacement?
V. Improvements shown in Attachment 5????? The published plan was not
available for review —so there is no indication of what Attachment 5
shows or tells and —THIS REMAINS INFORMATION NOT DISCLOSED TO
CITIZENS!
FINALLY, WHEN THE AREA IS ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF REXBURG—WILL SNOW
REMOVAL AND MOSQUITO ABATEMENT BE MAINTAINED AT THE SAME LEVEL
AS CURRENTLY PROVIDED TO THE PROJECT AREA BY MADISON COUNTY?? M
As seen from past history of city management of these services, residents feel
that we will not receive these needed services in the future!!!
IF LEGAL DOCUMENTATION CAN BE GIVEN TO EACH LAND OWNER RESIDENT
AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT THAT THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE A BILL AND BE
FORCED TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR
PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE NORTH CENTRAL URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT —AND
AFTER GIVEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND UP FRONT DISCLOSURE OF HOW
THE PROJECT WILL AFFECT THE CITIZENS IN THE PROJECT AREA— THEN
CONSIDERATION COULD POSSIBLY BE GIVEN FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
David B. Klingler
To: North Central Urban Renewal Project;
This is Alan and NaeLyn Sakota, at 66 west moody road, Rexburg Idaho.
We don't need sidewalks, curbs, gutter, sewer and water.
We don't need to be or want to be in the city limits. We don't need to be
hooked up to the water and sewer, we already have a septic tank and a well. We
have had it for 17 years.
You say that there will be no more snow removal or mosquito abatement
from the city, somebody has to remove the snow because the school buses from
Madison county have to drive this road 5 days a week. The masque to abatement
is nice but we will not pay for it.
Why are you going to increase our property taxes, we already pay both
Sugar City and Rexburg taxes. You also say that for 6 to 8 months of construction,
there won't be any access to my house, that's not going to happen, My wife and I
need to work 5 days a week. How can you do that???
281 West Moody Road
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
9 November 2020
Rexburg City Council Members:
Re: North Central Urban Renewal Project
I live on Moody Road, so with the overpass being mentioned in this project, I am involved. I have
reviewed the newspaper reports of this project. I have some concerns:
• One of the residents in the targeted area talked with Richard Horner for clarification and more
information. There were no concrete answers for many of the questions he asked. The project
proposal was not yet printed. Alarming the public at this point, with threats of huge mandatory
changes and costs, is counterproductive. They are already shell-shocked by the COVID-19 crisis.
• Until traffic from 5th West is routed to Moran View, there is too little traffic or population on
Moran View to justify this massive overhaul. Since getting an Environmental Impact Statement
to approve disrupting a river and wetland is nearly impossible, all of the rest of this project is
moot and should be shelved until you have EPA approval.
• City services:
o The homeowners in this area have already paid for their water rights, wells, and septic
systems. We need a guarantee that we will not be required to attach to city services,
unless our own systems fail to function.
o It is extremely important for our emergency preparedness to have these systems that
are not dependent upon the public system that is outside our control.
o You have so many thousands of people who are dependent on your services. You should
be happy to allow people to provide for themselves.
o The County has been very responsible to provide prompt snow removal and mosquito
abatement. Will the City provide these services to our outlying area?
Many of the residents involved are elderly and retired. The threatened substantial financial burden
and talk of "eminent domain," "condemn property," "demolish buildings" is frightening to them. The
last thing they need is threatening news about things that may not happen for fifteen years. They should
be given a projected timeline for different aspects of the project.
Some people feel that decisions for this project are being rushed through. Public hearings are for
addressing concerns and disseminating information, not handing down ultimatums. This is especially
important, since you were not elected by these people affected by your decisions.
I know you do not want to give this impression. If it is not your intent to be heavy-handed, please
listen carefully and respond responsibly to those who attend the hearings. Be as considerate as though
they were your grandparents.
We all know that Rexburg is growing rapidly. We would be happy to have new shopping venues and
nice residential subdivisions. Looking into and planning for the future is an appropriate part of your job.
We have no complaint about the need to make infrastructure changes — when they are truly needed and
justified. To act prematurely only turns your Urban Renewal Project into a Rural Destruction Project.
Regards,
Sherry Farnsworth
(208) 227-8604
November 2020
Submitted by Christie Robertson (208) 351-5181
North Central Urban Renewal Project — Moran View Road
I am writing with concerns about the above project. There are many unknowns that have not been explained and
outlined on this project. Following are some of my concerns:
Timing of the hearing - Is it appropriate to be holding a hearing on such an important issue during the Covid-19
Pandemic? We are currently under a mask and limited meeting access order. Yes, we can provide written
testimony and the meeting is accessible virtually. But not everyone who would like to participate are
able/comfortable with these options. It is much better to all be able to articulate opinions and questions in
person and in one room. And the only specific notice concerning this hearing was published a couple of times in
the newspaper. The property owners who it affects were not notified any other way. Most people are
distracted by the Pandemic, and how to keep their family safe and secure. Adding the stress of possible
considerable monetary expense and loss of property value should not be necessary at this time.
Loss of property size - When the road is expanded and curbs and gutters put in, how much of the lot will be lost
to the City for this? It will decrease the size of the front yard. Landscaping will need to be removed and redone.
When the lot size is reduced, property value is also reduced.
Cost to property owner - The proposed cost for curb and gutter and other costs (hooking up to City water and
sewer) have not been disclosed. The property owner will be charged for this even though they are not
requesting to be annexed into the City of Rexburg. Also, what about the cost of the buried utility lines from
Rocky Mountain Power and other utility companies? Who pays for this? Where will the transformers, etc. be
placed? Also, what are the monthly costs for City utilities?
City of Rexburg property requirements - There are numerous questions that need to be addressed on the
property requirements. These are just a few. Some property owners have outbuildings on their lots. Will these
have to be removed to meet with City requirements? There is some pasture land that has horses on it
periodically. Will this be possible anymore? What about fencing requirements?
Length of time for construction - What is the proposed length of time for road construction and curb and
gutters? What is the plan for these? Property owners would have limited access to property during the
construction period. This adds a hardship to families with children trying to get on/off school buses.
Other concerns — As Madison County residents, our road has been plowed in the Winter by the County.
Because this is an East/West road, blowing snow causes periodic drifting across the road. The County
snowplows are usually out early to plow. There are residents who leave early in the morning for work. And
school buses run early in this area also. How often and early would this road be plowed by the City? Also, we
receive mosquito abatement each Summer from the County. Would this continue with the City?
These are just a few of the important concerns on the North Central Urban Renewal Project — Moran View Road that
need to be addressed before any further actions are taken.
Respectfully Submitted,
V �ii'iU4N"C� �
Christie Robertson
Ms. Ilene Olsen
PO Box 583
`> Rexburg, ID 83440-0583
"2-
'J'AQ11"k ?1-4.
dcz,z' -txL
"Y7
-IV
le
c
a
CL
x
a
c
0
CL
2
O�•� N.. CJ Hyr
ngw.pw
��° y,�o•o�ow�•�,o
o
�z8° 0nOcO+s°c
15 V bA 9l ! O
a Oi
o
a�r-4 Io
ci �CU cc> Z IL
MIX
'"O�NwO�u��OvW
102 O � • 75 y (Vlj bA sC4
RE Ou our ��o8.2 la
O�U•6d s u iO� CAA
a
bL" qap y o O O N O d� p' '0
as
O°a,apao�po �c�i.�ain.O�a
U u�
°- � -0
V2 �jl acz
CU
1-0
p O t
Ufite x ZO A. U rA
rn i� � O 0 S]i n � U O O rJ RS �,
0.
o R,O 0 o4 OO+ Z >> y ce.w'S CR� cpi� �j �+U+ 1Or�� O
ram- '° r si"'.+ � w .F3 CS, O • a� o O � �
r.
d O 4 Fes" Vn S�� °Ci Q ��, 0 suec�+
N qj P bA O .a: GJ 1" w ry GJ
o ,o .4 2o
.Lt .°; � vz � a��i Ca O � �✓ � •y, O O � r.,
Rexburg City Mayor, Jerry Merrill
Rexburg City Council Members
Planning and Zoning Committee
Rexburg City Attorney
35 North 1 st East
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
February 15, 2017
RE: Mayor Jerry Merrill's "Proposal" to allow citywide overnight rental business
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Committee Members:
As you may recall from the last public meeting on the Airbnb issue, we care deeply about this
issue, and hope you will join us in caring deeply, with the overall welfare of our community as
the overriding consideration.
Repeatedly, we find ourselves wondering... "why?" Why would our city leaders be inclined to
cater to business interests that seek to turn our neighborhoods into profit centers for short-term
rental operators? Sure, some people will make money. But that would be true if we opened 7-
11 stores in our neighborhoods too. So why do we protect our neighborhoods from some
threats but not others? Is there something in our charter that directs leaders to selectively
enforce zoning ordinances? If our mayor, and our city council, are not watchdogs for the
traditional ambience and safety of the town, then what hope does our town have? If our
leaders will countenance disobedience of our dutifully enacted zoning ordinances, then what
role does the rule of law still have?
Our mayor and other city leaders appear to be turning the reins of leadership over to business
interests that have already begun the process of turning our neighborhoods into Airbnb rental
business zones, transforming single family homes into overnight rental units with sometimes
absentee owners. This is taking place in open violation of the law. Are we really so
helpless? We can handle the logistics of garbage collection, but not zoning enforcement?
In California, where Airbnb began nine years ago, there is a trend in communities up and down
the state to BAN Airbnb type business. So Airbnb is taking the offensive in communities like
ours, not yet sensitized to the problems that come with transforming neighborhoods into rental
areas. Are we rubes who will roll over in the face of Airbnb's clamoring, or are we led by
stewards who carefully survey the potential dangers, and respond with strength? I urge you to
let your analysis be guided by a fierce protective demeanor, founded upon recognizing the
value inherent to our residential environments. Let's keep that value, not sell it to the highest
bidder.
If any of the city leaders find themselves conflicted because of their personal business
interests, please recuse yourselves from involvement in this issue. For example, if a city
leader were to own a landscaping business, which would benefit from an increased percentage
of absentee property owners, that person should not be taking any position on this
issue. Further, our city leaders should not be accepting any gifts from lobby groups associated
with the rental industry. This includes payment of travel expenses
Please remember that your duty of stewardship is to the citizens, not to the rental business
interests.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated valiant service in the defense of our town's charm,
character, history, safety and peace. If any of you would like to discuss this issue, I would be
happy and eager to do so.
Sincerely,
.Wq
Sharon and Jim DeMordaunt
345 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, ID 83440
From: Ted Whyte [mailtoAnwhyte@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 12:26 PM
To: Blair Kay <Blair.Kay@rexburg.org>
Subject: Re: Rolling Hills, Eclipse
Dear City Management,
I am voicing my opinion and several neighbor's opinions. The short term
rental proposal has many concerns in its regard of how it is being used and
implemented. I am a defender of private property rights and peoples use to
their properties. "BUT" let's keep some facts in line with what are some
concerns and violations. The reason the people own their homes is because
they qualified for a mortgage in most instances. Some could have bought
their homes with cash. I would say at least 95% are purchased with a
mortgage and in that mortgage it is stated that is owner occupied and single
family usage.
#1 That is first violation they are breaking an agreement when they
acquired their mortgage. If they were buying their property for a rental the
terms would have been different, such as 20% down payment, and a higher
interest rate and seeing that property qualified as a rental for the zoning.
#2 If they were buying property for a use like a duplex then many code
items would have been discovered and applied for a duplex condition. That
those buying a duplex would have needed to follow.
#3 The city enforces duplex usage with many conditions and code
requirements that aren't being adhered to with short term rentals.
#4 The insurance that the home owner as acquired when the purchased
their home for owner occupied conditions is different if it's going be used as
a rental. The insurance policy needs to be changed to a rental policy and
insure it with different coverage's.
#5 The zoning that most of these homes are setting in is defined and low
density and deemed single family residences and their values are protected
in that way. When we neutralize all the zoning with a short term rental
ability then it diminishes the need for zoning protections.
#6 Most of the neighborhoods are built with CC&R's and it is very common
language in most CC&R's that the neighborhood is built upon the basis that
it is one single family dwelling on each lot. Creating anything different now
becomes a multifamily usage and now a violation of the protective CC&R's.
These are some of my concerns in regards to the usage of short term
rentals. It violates so many standards in the Real Estate world that the
bending of all these rules to accommodate a few people that demand
fairness for a few rental dollars of income.
It will with time have a negative impact on neighbors and
neighborhoods. Ask all the people wanting short term rentals if they are
willing contact their mortgage companies and ask for a different mortgage
with higher rental interest rates, different and higher insurance policies.
Contact the city for variances for the all zoning needs and public hearings
with all the neighbors. So all their neighbors have an invested voice for their
neighborhoods.
Thanks Ted Whyte
TED WHYTE, Associate Broker
Century 21 High Desert
859 S. Yellowstone Hwy, Suite #802
Rexburg, ID 83440
(208)351-9595-cell (208)356-0588-office
(800)807-0588-toll free (208)356-0628-fax
vl�Id.P v�nd��'tP ,�2A_ 1tilWt j;�lZO
�L�--lam?—S��Qd Ulf-(,2�LC� l,LL9'11GjlCQJ �f'. � __L�tk'LO
t�`�zen �Tt2Qef�Le�ae,4o 2��
nac{.Putfu all c,a o vy 2nq�
U
J. I) Pam. qr7
Rexburg City Hall
35 North Ist East
Rexburg, ID 83440
February 12, 2017
Members of the Rexburg City Council:
I am writing to object to the manner of assessment concerning L.I.D. No. 47. My property,
located at 510 Taurus Dr., and repairs associated with it because of proximity, should not be
assessed exclusively to me. The supposed need for repairs adjacent to my property are part
of the cities infrastructure that should be maintained by my and all other city residents' taxes.
The repairs indicated on the map included in my notification clearly show about a 30 ft.
stretch of curb on the east side of my property. The actual site in need of repair is no longer
than 8 ft. and is minor in scope. It does not interfere whatsoever with drainage. It is also
questionable as to whether it borders on my property or my neighbor's to the north. The
portion of the curb on the south side of my property is no longer than 15 ft. and does create
a bit of a problem with stagnant water for 3 or 4 days after a storm. It causes no problem
with drainage other than that.
According to the notification I received, the cost of this city-wide repair initiative is
$1,623,300 and the city already has $1,109,100. So the city already has about 68% of the
revenue needed for these improvements (1,109,100/1,623,300 = .68324), leaving about 32%
to be paid by another source. If that source is to be me, my assessment for repairs ($4100)
represents that additional 32% which means the total cost of repairs for the curbs adjacent to
my property would be nearly $13,000 (4100/.31676). I have first-hand knowledge of the
extent of the proposed repairs and I have a difficult time believing they amount to that much.
The repairs will benefit everyone who walks by or parks next to the curbs. Therefore, I
believe it is the responsibility of all Rexburg citizens to share the burden of repairs such as
these through local tax revenues. I am not the one responsible for the failure of the curb
structure (no individual is) and do not believe it is fair to assess me for this large sum just
because the curb -failures border my property. Please reconsider this assessment and
perhaps consider proposing a levy for the voters so all can share in the upkeep and
beautification of our city. This individual property assessment seems grossly unfair to
property owners.
Respe fully,
/I
�2
Tanya Johnson
208 313 1430
From: <no-replykrexburg.org>
Date: February 4, 2017 at 11:31:33 AM MST
To: <Val. Christensen@rexburg. org>
Subject: Rolling Hills, Eclipse
Reply -To: <jimrichardsl23(cr��gmail.com>
This message was sent from Rexburg.org:
Dear Val Christensen, I'm writing to let you know that 1, and many of my
neighbors in the Rolling Hills area, strongly oppose changing LDR1 zones to
allow short-term rentals such as AirBnbs. If a temporary allowance is needed
for the August solar eclipse influx of visitors, then it need only be for a week
or so, not for a year, and then revisited as suggested recently by Mayor
Merrill, but a permit should still be required. The majority of my neighbors
support and uphold the current LDR1 laws and ordinances, and we hope you,
too, will uphold and enforce these laws rather than change them to
accommodate the few who are violating them. The LDR1 zoning laws and
ordinances help make our neighborhood great. Please help us keep it that way.
Thank you, Jim Richards
You may reply to j imrichards 123 kgmail.com.
Sent at 2017-02-04 11:31:33
April 21, 2021
Rexburg Mayor and City Council:
As a former member of Rexburg's Planning and Zoning Commission, I
am concerned whenever an applicant attempts to overturn a settled
ordinance. Especially when overturning it has consequences for the
personal lives of the men, women, and children who choose to live
here because of values and feelings they hold dear.
I am disappointed when an applicant seeks to ignore the greater good
in favor of a personal self-interest.
I am disappointed when an applicant seeks to overturn a
recommendation made by the men and women of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Planning & Zoning Commissioners are unpaid volunteers. They make
recommendations based on existing codes and ordinances. Their
decisions are guided by the Ordinance language. Their decisions are
made after personal inspections, public hearings, GIS modeling, and
thoughtful discussions. They follow the law. They lose sleep at night.
They carry a burden when they must say "no" to proposals outside of
the best interests of the community in which they serve.
Yesterday I read page after page of single-spaced minutes of one just
night's deliberations regarding sign heights. One would have thought
the issue involved rerouting highway 20—not the height of a proposed
sign. No stone was left unturned in their journey to be fair and to find
some wiggle room to help the applicant, Mr. Berry.
I believe their recommendation to leave the 50-foot height
specification in place is thoughtful, correct, and in the best long-term
interests of the community.
I believe we will be on the wrong side of history if we do not draw a
line in the sand preventing sign heights from going above the current
50-feet as stated in the Ordinance. Forward thinking communities and
major businesses (Walmart among them) are going in the opposite
direction. They are bringing sign heights down. They are
decluttering their roadways. They are seeking ways to make signs
be less intrusive.
Community leaders should think long-term. Ninety years ago, a mayor
looked at an abandoned piece of property in downtown Rexburg and
asked, 'Why not a city park? One that will serve the best interests of
1
the community not just for a year or two, but one that will serve a
hundred years, two hundred years, and more."
Signs are not city parks. But when we envision 100-years of steady
sign growth at Rexburg's off -ramps, let's hope the generations who
follow our generation will be thankful we had them in mind when we
enforced our sign ordinance.
Thank you for your time.
G�h�ctl( PC Y +-C Y_
z
3 December 2025
Mayor Merrill & Rexburg City Council;
My name is Todd Grant. I live at 3958 East 136 North. Rigby
I did not want to be here tonight but I felt the need to be here to participate in our Republican form of
government and express my concerns.
I am here tonight to voice my opposition to hiring Portman Square Group to design and execute a valid
survey of Rexburg voters and residents regarding the Rexburg Police Station facility bond. I visited
.._ _
with Matt Ne suil ovci uit; plluiiC ycJi�luily %1iiCi i iifidei'Siiiflii t11� Sili'"vcy Gus is a�j�rohliiiately $SCCC t0
$8000. My understanding is there will most likely be another election next year to get the Police station
bond passed. If there is another election next year I feel that is unethical, morally wrong, wasting voters
time and taxpayers Federal Reserve notes to vote on the item twice, because they did not like the
election results!!! The voters have already rejected this Police Station Bond in November. There is no
need to have another election 6 months or 12 months later. This is fiscal irresponsibility. According to
the Madison County elections office the cost is about $15,000 - $20,000 per election. This is not the
proper role of government. The total cost of the survey and election would be about $22,000. This
money could be spent on the roads that need repairing and or replacing. If a Rexburg city council
member, Mayor or Governor or Idaho legislator was defeated in November and wanted to have another
election the following May six months later would that be acceptable? I would certainly hope not! !!
According to the Madison County elections office that I spoke to today 17.9 percent of the voters
participated in the November election. That is a sad commentary on the citizens of this county. The
minority deciding important issues. The Police station Bond did not pass by the 66 2/3 percent. It
lacked about 4 percent to pass, but the results are final the votes have been cast and the voters have
rejected the police station bond.
If Rexburg City wants to get more people than involved in the political process they could send a
notice with the utility bills and explore other methods.
I urge to to know this is not the proper role of government to spend taxpayers money for a survey and
another election next year because you did not get the police station bond passed. Thank you for your
consideration on these issues.
Does any one have any questions?
Dear Rexburg City Council members,
Regarding the Proposed New Police Station in Rexburg.
I have been a resident of Rexburg for over 40 years.
I agree that the City Police Department needs a new Police Station. However, I will not be voting in favor
of the Police Station as it is proposed.
While I like the notion of the station being located close to where I live, I am concerned about the
specific site. Please address these concerns.
• The only routes from the proposed location to the bulk of the city are north and south on
Pioneer Road or exiting Pioneer Road into residential neighborhoods. Pioneer Road is an
important corridor for school buses in the morning and the evening. All cars must stop for bus
pick up and drop off activities. I recognize that police vehicles on patrol would be first
responders but I've also witnessed many police vehicles responding from the present Police
Station. It would be dangerously unsafe to respond from the new location while navigating
school bus traffic. What about a SWAT operation responding in an emergency manner?
• There are no traffic control lights at the proposed location. If the Police Station Bond is voted in,
this should be a mandatory addition to the new plan.
• Police Station should be centrally located to optimize the shortest distance to all parts of the City
of Rexburg. The proposed location is not.
• The proposed lot is not zoned for a police station. It is zoned HDR1. Police Stations are permitted
in Zone PF (Public Facilities), UD (University District), MU (Mixed Use), CBC (Community Business
Center), and RBC (Regional Business Center).��
9
Sincerely,
Anthony K. Perkins
386 Oaktrail Dr.
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
208-351-5689