The following is from another group of concerned residents:

Why is Providence City pushing to rezone 79 acres of open space on the east bench to medium and high-density housing?

We need your help to grow smarter. Join “Envision Providence” on Facebook.


What is LCR?

LCR (Life Cycle Residential) zoning was recently passed by the Providence City Council and is Mayor Drew’s signature legislation. It is meant to allow developers to build medium and high- density housing, mixed with single family homes and integrated green-space in Providence. It’s more complicated than this, so we encourage you to read the full zoning ordinance on Providence City’s website.

Why are many residents opposed to LCR?

Many residents’ are not opposed to the concept of LCR but find its application very problematic. Because it’s broadly written, LCR allows land developers great discretion on the amount and type of green space required and the density of housing they build (4-12 units per acre, including apartments and townhomes/condos). Early plans for the city show that LCR zoning may be available anywhere in the city. Currently the city is considering an application to rezone 79 acres on Providence’s bench, allowing the developer to build high-density housing in this area.


How much denser will this new development be than existing zoning?

We’ve asked the Mayor, City Council, city employees, and the developer – nobody can tell us. Because of the zoning we can safely say it will be at least twice the number of residences and potentially 400-500% as many. It will also include condos or apartments, likely both.

I live in Millville, is there anything that I can do?

Yes, your presence at city meetings says a lot! You are Providence’s closest neighbors and we should make decisions like this together. If you were our next door neighbor, we wouldn’t put up a fence without consulting you. You get it.

Is there a development plan that I can look at?

No. This is one of the main reasons we are speaking out. No developer should be given the amount of control that LCR currently provides.

I’ve heard that the Mayor and the City Council have already made up their minds and want this rezoning, why should I speak out?

City officials need to be accountable to their residents and represent their views. We believe city officials will listen to our voices; if not, we intend to take this rezoning to referendum.

Isn’t planned green space a good thing?

Yes, however previous interactions with this developer and others have shown that areas designated as green space are typically less desirable (utility easements under power lines, high water table areas, steep grades, etc.).

Isn’t the state of Utah requiring cities to build more affordable housing?

Yes, the state is requiring municipalities over 5,000 people to build moderate income housing into their general plans. They are requiring cities to share these plans with their residents. Providence’s plan was last updated in 2000. We think it’s prudent to finish the plan before rezoning large swaths of undeveloped land.

If more housing is needed, what else can we do?

Modern smart growth hinges on the principle of the urban-to-rural transect (you can look it up). This LCR rezoning places denser populations away from major corridors and city transit, ignoring smart development fundamentals. It not only breaks up the continuity of existing neighborhoods, it adds unnecessary traffic and constructs denser populations away from required city services.

We have lots of ideas and many intelligent people that want to help address housing needs (builders, business experts, and economists). We also believe that residents should define the community in which they live.

Would high density in this area be safe?

We don’t know, but we’re skeptical. We would like more information on road access, traffic studies for various densities, road steepness, the impact of an earthquake, threat of wildfires, silty soil, and more.

I don’t live in this area, why should I care?

These new residents will be traveling through your neighborhood. LCR rezoning is likely coming to your neighborhood soon too.

PLEASE attend the following city meetings.
(Meetings are at Providence City Hall, 164 Gateway Dr)

Mayor’s Town Hall – Sat. December 8, 8 – 10 am
Planning & Zoning – Wed. December 12, 6:30 pm
City Council Mtg.* – Tue. January 8, 6:30 pm

Please note, these dates may change. Please join our Envision Providence Facebook group to stay up to date.

Tips for meetings

  • Be respectful.
  • Arrive at least 15 minutes early.
  • Bring this flyer and ask the questions on the back. Keep public discourse factual.
  • Make large visible signs to share your opinion.
  • Invite your neighbors.


  1. Are you in favor of rezoning the 79 acres just south of Providence Canyon to LCR? Why or why not?
  2. The draft general plan will currently allow LCR rezoning anywhere in the city. You have also written a proposed ordinance that would allow residents to build accessory dwelling units on their lots with few restrictions. How do these decisions fit into your vision for providence?
  3. Due to South Providence’s boundary peninsula, Millville will be greatly affected by Providence’s zoning decisions. How do Millville residents feel about the prospect of zoning much of Providence’s southeast bench to higher-density LCR?
  4. The state is requiring cities to develop a master plan that includes the development of moderate and low-income housing. The law also requires that cities share these plans with their residents for comment. Why are large swaths of land being rezoned to LCR before the city completes its plan?
  5. City representatives have stated that LCR is a response to the need for more affordable housing, yet, at the recent planning and zoning meeting, Mayor Drew stated that the proposed LCR above Providence Highlands would be high-end housing. How will this rezone help provide needed affordable housing?
  6. What was the public’s feedback regarding the first Providence area rezoned to LCR and how was that feedback received and used by the city?
  7. Areas of providence have distinct character: the old town with its quaint trees and unique homes, central bench with its large lots, and the east bench with its impressive custom designs, among others. When LCR is applied to areas of existing development, how will that affect the continuity and character of existing neighborhoods?
  8. Rezoning areas to higher density housing brings in fewer property taxes and decreases property values for existing owners, yet, developers are able to extract more value from their struggling land investments at the residents’ and city’s expense. Could this be viewed as a redistribution of wealth and a tax payer bailout for real estate developers?
  9. Since the city rezoned the Chugg property to LCR on the north end of town, the very first LCR in Providence, problems have arisen with the developer regarding who is going to pay for a needed $300k bridge for egress/ingress into the community. How much of the cost is the city bearing for the bridge and do the lack of specifics in the LCR unfairly advantage developers by rezoning first and dealing with the details later?

Click or tap here to download Envision Providence’s flyer.

A Chronology of Providence City’s Continued Attempts to Annex Private Property

Private drive shown within Millville City limits (not Providence’s), that the Simmons’ home is on.

We are very concerned at what we have been hearing from Steve Simmons, Susan Packer and Howard Creed about the tentative revision of the original Dan Cox subdivision agreement which was voided by the Judge Willmore decision last year in favor of Simmons and his neighbors.

[ Steve Simmons’ letter concerning this issue, Providence City vs. Private Property Rights, can be found by clicking the link. ]

Here is the story so far, to the best of our understanding:

Providence City annexed the private driveway called 2100 South (not in Providence at the time) in error, believing the Cache County plat map was correct in showing that driveway was a public right-of-way. The driveway in question, built by the current owner’s father Don Simmons in 1991, does not appear on any official Cache County road map past or present . It was only on a plat map. Utah law clearly states a plat map is not legal proof of a road’s ownership by government.
None of the owners of adjacent land were informed of the annexation of the “2100 South” private driveway, although the Utah State Code requires them to be informed in writing by the county and/ or city in question. Not having been informed of the annexation, property owners with adjacent land missed the deadline for protesting the annexation.

Steve Simmons, owner of the “2100 South” private driveway, learned of the annexation of his driveway nine months after the fact.
Steve Simmons filed a petition to Cache County to vacate its right-of-way claim on his property, but received no reply.
Failing to reach a negotiated settlement with the developer, Cache County and Providence City, Simmons and six neighbors (all of whom live on the private driveway deceptively labeled “2100 South”) filed suit in District Court against Cache County, Providence City and developer Dan Cox requesting they vacate their claim to a right-of-way on Simmons’ private property.

At the opening of the case presentation in District Court, the Cache County Attorney testified that Cache County had no proof of a legal right-of-way on the driveway called 2100 South and bowed out of the case.

Providence City and the developer gave Simmons et al. the impression that they wanted to continue to fight the law suit anyway for two more years. We also learned from Mr. Simmons that during that period the developer boasted he could afford to bury the plaintiffs in legal costs.

3/13 Judge Thomas Willmore decided in favor of the six “2100 South” plaintiffs. (Case # 150100236)  Mr.Cox had removed Simmons’ fence and some trees while the law suit was still ongoing when Cox believed he owned the fence line (due to a faulty survey). Cox also installed a sewer line in an irrigation ditch which he believed was on his property but was shown by Willmore’s decision not to be on Cox’s property. Judge Willmore’s decision included orders for Cox to restore the fence and repair any damage he had done. It took Cox eight months and two additional hearings (and paying some of plaintiffs’ legal expenses) to remove the sewer line, rebuild the irrigation ditch and restore the fence.

3/13 Simmons’ written requests to Providence City, Cache County and the State of Utah to correct their error on the Cache County street map (which showed erroneously that his driveway was a public right of way) were not answered.

3/18 Mayor John Drew sent his “memo” listing possible options for the completion of the Dan Cox subdivision. One of these options was “Eminent Domain, may not be legal”. The memo was reviewed at a Providence City Council meeting where Mayor Drew and City Administrator Bankhead reiterated their concern that they “follow the Master Plan”. (Simmons observed that a planned major east-west road at the location of his private driveway appeared on the Providence Master Plan’s Transportation Plan map publicly only starting May of 2018.)

4/18 Simmons addressed Providence City in writing with a request that they correct the Cache County map error showing his driveway erroneously as a public right of way.

4/18 Dan Cox submitted a proposal to Providence City for a new Subdivision permit with his new development plan.

5/8 Providence Mayor John Drew stated in a public City Council meeting his preference for Dan Cox to avoid losing two lots by installing an isolated east-west length of “road” narrower than what is permitted by Providence ordinances. Originally Cox had planned to have a cul-de-sac on that boundary of his property, but did not want to install a cross street sufficiently close to the cul-de-sac as required by Providence Ordinances.

5/25 Simmons and neighbors met with Mayor Drew and City Administrator Bankhead to discuss the issues. The city officials informed Mr. SImmons et al. that requiring Mr. Cox to build a short section of one-half of a non-existent road would not violate the City code as it will be labeled an “unfinished” or “incomplete road.” (?) The city officials insisted that all of the land south of the Cox road is going to be subdivided and developed and that will solve the road problem “someday”. (?) The mayor confidently but mysteriously predicted that no one would buy a city lot with a road in the front and a 10 foot driveway in the back. (?) Mayor Drew also opined that Mr. Simmons’ trees and irrigation ditch didn’t matter, which would mean they had no value as real estate or as improvements. The fact that the developer felt he could sell lots on a cul-de-sac with the back of the lot to the Simmons property didn’t matter to Mayor Drew and Ms. Bankhead. It seemed to Mr. Simmons that the City officials were somehow obsessed with the notion of taking his driveway, in spite of Judge Wilmore’s Decision that they had no right to do so. Seven years and an expensive and lost lawsuit had not changed the minds of these two City officials.

Mayor Drew and Ms. Bankhead also provided Mr. Simmons with an instruction kit as to how he could correct the annexation map error at his expense (the Cache County fee is $150).

6/2 Simmons wrote an email to the City Council members requesting that the issue be solved now, this month. He requested the City either build the complete road they so ardently desire somewhere else or offer to buy the land they want. Mr. Simmons and his neighbors find it very frustrating that Mayor Drew continues to deny any plans for using Eminent Domain action on Simmons’ property while trying to prepare a subdivision plan that will make it extremely likely in the vague future.

The private road/drive (private property) looking west.

The Utah State Code governing a public taking of private property requires that the planned use for such property be a legal use, that the taking be necessary for the implementation of that legal use, that construction toward such a legal use commence promptly following such a taking and that the proposed new use must be an improvement over the previous use of the property.

The Providence City code only allows two road width options for new roads: with paving sections of 37 feet and 56 feet. There is no legal 25-feet- wide road option for a new road. Currently Providence Mayor Drew has informed Simmons officially that his preference will be to require Cox to build a short stretch of half of a 56-feet-wide road on the south border of Cox’s property, with the plan that eventually (no date proposed) Providence City will take Simmons’ driveway and part of his yard via Eminent Domain for a road which cannot proceed all the way to Highway 89 anyway because USU has a big piece of property in the way of such a path–and the USU property is not subject to municipal Eminent Domain. The location of the USU property suggests that another location would be best for a wide thoroughfare, not the “2100 South” driveway.

The story so far, then, is that Providence City erred in annexing what turned out to not be a public right of way, failed to inform adjacent landowners of the annexation (as required by state law), lost in District Court when it was revealed that there was no such public right-of-way to take, failed to answer written correspondence asking the City to correct the error on the County map, now instructs Simmons to pay Cache County’s $150 fee as part of his application to the County to correct their map, and plans to (illegally) require Dan Cox to install a tiny section of one-half of a legal road– with the supposed plan of using Eminent Domain at some unspecified future date to seize the remainder of their required road width from Simmons by seizing his driveway and part of his front yard (already declared officially in District Court not to be a public right-of-way). In the alternative, they plan to await the appearance of a developer who will buy buy the Simmons parcel of 1.35 acres, tear down the house, built the other half of the city’s road, install a cul-de-sac on the west end at the USU property and subdivide the remaining land into ¼ acres lots.

An obvious major problem with this plan is that there is nothing in the Providence City Ordinances that requires an applicant to install a section of a road which does not exist, so Cox cannot legally be required to install such a section of a non-existent road. There is nothing in the Ordinances allowing one-half of a section of road to be built in such a location that its completion will require the use of Eminent Domain. It is not feasible for the current City Council to make decisions which would require future City Councils to enact an Eminent Domain action. Also, the most reasonable place for an east-west major street rather than the private drive (“2100 South”) would be along the 600 South. If Mr. Cox is required to place the back sides of two lots up against half of a short stretch of a non-existent road, with the expectation that the houses built on those lots will eventually look out on a major thoroughfare, that would seem be very poor planning–almost the opposite of planning.

Private road/drive looking East

Providence City vs. Private Property Rights

The entrance to the Creed/Packer farm in Millville, next door to the Simmons’, showing mature landscaping that will be destroyed if taken illegally by Providence City to establish a 66’ wide road that is outside of Providence City limits.

A Chronology of Providence City’s Continued Attempts to Annex Private Property can be found by licking the link. ]

Some questions for the citizens of Providence, Utah:

If the city administrator, mayor, and city council members are honest people? Then why do they make written and verbal statements that they aren’t going to invoke eminent domain to take the Simmons and Creed land, then in private they ask the developer to build a narrow 24 foot wide road next to the Simmons and Creed property? They have stated that they want a 66 foot wide road. The city’s own codes require a 66 foot wide road. Where are they planning to get the rest of the road width if not by eminent domain against the Simmons and Creed property? Are they suddenly going to settle for a 24 foot wide road in violation of their own city code instead of a 66 foot wide road? If they are so honest and if there is nothing wrong with their behavior, why do they seek to hide it from the public? Why not openly admit they want the land and make an open and fair offer for it? Simmons and Creed both say that in the seven years this issue has lasted so far; neither the developer nor the city have ever offered to buy the land they want in the open and honest way normal people do when they want some land.

Why does the city council seem determined to solve the housing crisis along the Wasatch front of Utah by themselves? Were they elected by the developers? Or did the people who might want to move to Cache valley elect them? Why are they not more responsive to the desires of the people who already live in Providence? Why are they fixated on more and bigger roads instead of bike-paths, walking paths or even equestrian paths? Why are there not more city parks?* Why don’t they focus on improving the quality of life for the citizens of Providence instead of so much focus on future growth? Growth happens, so where is the focus on preserving a green belt and future city park lands to maintain the current semi-rural quality of life for the current voting citizens? They make a master plan for roads on land they don’t own or control, do they have future parks and bike paths set aside? The master plan map of future roads has been on the wall of the city administrator for years but only on the city website for a month or two. Where is the map of future city parks, bike paths, walking paths, horse trails?

They say they focus on future growth, do they have plans for a future pedestrian overpass from the north side of 1st north to the school on the south side or must the children of city voters risk life and limb to cross as the traffic they forecast from new development increases?

Honest and fair minded people don’t have to find ways to hide their actions from the public. In fact they look for ways to inform the public.

Steve Simmons

* One of Mayor John Drews campaign complaints with the previous mayor’s administration was “ignoring” lack of enough parkland acreage in Providence. Now is a perfect, if fleeting, chance to increase all property values in Providence by adding parkland and equestrian trails while procuring a greenbelt at the same time. (ed.)

Private drive shown within Millville City limits (not Providence’s), that the Simmons’ home is on.

The private road/drive (private property) looking west.

Private road/drive looking East

The Simmons’ front yard, showing mature landscaping that will be destroyed if taken by eminent domain by Providence City.

The Simmons’ front yard in Millville, that was annexed illegally by Providence. It will be removed and replaced with a 66’ paved thoroughfare if Providence City goes through with its illegal planned taking by eminent domain.

Watchdog Report

Hello Watchdogs…

Below please see excerpted minutes from River Heights City Council, April 24th, 2018 concerning the Chugg property. Please see the part about Mayor John Drew.

Now this developer, whom many on Providence City Council think is just marvelous to know, is no longer willing to pay the cost of one of the two bridges which would be needed in order for his proposed town home subdivision to go up near the bench between the two towns. 

The supreme irony of this is that it was his willingness to pay for the bridge and build it which first delighted various Providence City Council members (all but the late Jeff Baldwin, who remained rational throughout). An additional irony is the fact that they have approved the repugnant Life Cycle Residential zone and now have 


Having been romanced into passing a new zone, specially designed to rezone and invade established neighborhoods with transient residents and loud, heavy traffic, the Council members and the Mayor must now face up to being left dangling by a developer who was just kidding about what he intended to offer. 

At the same time, days after the addition of this new repugnant zone to our Ordinances, the City has an application to build town homes on a 2-acre SFT (single family traditional zone) residential parcel from an applicant whop apparently thinks the parcel is already zoned LCR and wants to change it to MFM (multi-family medium density zone). I doubt anyone thought of this as a potential bad outcome when they approved the new zone, but here is an applicant trying to use the fictional application of the new zone as a way-station to justify asking for high-density zoning (none of that planned community stuff) in a single family neighborhood. 

Recently I was thinking it might be feasible to refer to the voters the application of the new zone to the Chugg property. but now they are sidelined on that anyway.

Now I am thinking instead that not only did we not NEED the new zone, not only did many people sincerely oppose it for good reasons, but also it is really a liability looking for a place to happen (since it is described as a “rezone” by definition). Maybe the best think overall would be to refer to the voters the notion of getting rid of this zone as it is not needed here and seems likely to cause a lot of harm. 


James Brackner will be finished working for the City by April 30. Mayor Rasmussen expressed his appreciation for all the help he has given him.

He has talked to Providence Mayor Drew and was informed the Army Corp of Engineers has gotten involved with the bridge on the Chugg property, which is causing the project to cost more than initially thought. The developer is now saying he didn’t say he would pay for the installation and asked for their annexation petition to be tabled while he looks into some things. Mayor Rasmussen told Mayor Drew that River Heights didn’t protest the annexation because it was understood that Providence would make sure the bridge was installed so they could take the traffic through Providence. And, if the developers come back to River Heights, Providence (or the developer) would still be required to put in the bridge. Some of the Providence residents are very against development on the Chugg property.

He is working with the city attorney to figure out the process for bringing non-compliant residents into compliance. Attorney Jenkins said non-compliance is a Class B misdemeanor and suggested a friendly letter at first. A second letter would be from the attorney, which would act as a citation. If the infraction is immediately remedied, the City will drop the charges. If it continues there will be fines, jail time, etc. Infractions, which will be looked at, will include all things that are non-compliant with the City’s code. Mr. Rasmussen suggested having a flyer delivered to each home, giving a heads up on the City’s plan before sending the first round of letters.

A Concerned Providence Citizen Speaks Out

Providence resident Brian Craig shared his views in letters to the editor of the Herald Journal published October 18, 2017 and March 24, 2018.

Subdivision raises River Heights concerns

Oct 18, 2017

To the editor:

The proposed Ridgeview Park Subdivision in River Heights creates a host of questions and concerns. The proposed subdivision, with 56 single-family lots, 52 active adult single family lots and 68 town homes, is located right next to River Heights Elementary School. After reviewing the proposed subdivision, I have a number of concerns. Specifically, I have traffic and safety, educational, environmental, green space, and flooding concerns.

Traffic and safety concerns: The proposed subdivision will increase traffic and safety concerns, especially around River Heights Elementary School. Traffic is already a concern, especially around the elementary school. Adding more homes, including more densely populated town homes, will impact traffic and safety in the area. Multi-dwelling units often bring in a more transient population than single family homes.

Educational concerns: The proposed subdivision will have a negative impact on learning at River Heights Elementary School. My son attends River Heights Elementary and I am concerned that the noise will affect learning at the school. I also wonder about class size since the school is already near capacity using more portable units.

Environmental concerns: The planning commission should require an environmental impact study before approving the proposed subdivision. The planned subdivision is located right next to Spring Creek which is home to major native plants, birds, and animals.

Green space concerns: The planning commission should require more green space and the addition of a city park with the proposed subdivision. Currently, River Heights has very few multi-family units. The city or planning commission should require more green space and consider building a city park within the proposed subdivision.

Flooding concerns: The proposed subdivision is located in an area that has been subject to flooding, including this past winter. Building news homes in an area which has been prone to flooding in the past, including a high0water table, raises some questions.

The River Heights City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, October 26, at 7 p.m. at River Heights Elementary to discuss and hear comments regarding the proposed subdivision. Those interested should attend this meeting and voice their opinion. This issue affects the people of River Heights and Providence since the proposed new subdivision includes access roads through Providence.

Brian Craig

Providence shouldn’t annex Chugg Property

Mar 24, 2018

To the editor:

I am expressing my opposition to the proposed annexation by the city of Providence of the so-called Chugg Property located south of River Heights Elementary School for a housing development. After the residents of River Heights banded together to oppose multi-family homes, the developer is now looking to the city of Providence for annexation. The property is currently unincorporated Cache County land and serves as hay field. The developer wants to build townhomes on the property which will add more traffic and crime to the area. This will also reduce property values in Providence and River Heights and take away even more green space. The elementary schools in Providence and River Heights are already exceeding capacity. I am not against all new home construction, but let’s leave the Chugg Property located south of River Heights Elementary School as agricultural property. At this rate, we won’t have any more hay fields left in Cache Valley.

Brian Craig

Providence Mayor Drew’s Cheerleading for Developers – Newspaper

The following from Mayor John Drew was published in the city’s newsletter and appeared as a ‘Guest Commentary’ in the Herald Journal in print and online on April 26, 2018.

About Providence’s new Life Cycle zone

By John Drew, Providence mayor
Apr 26, 2018

Over the past year, Providence city staff and Planning Commission have been working on adding a new land-use zone to our ordinances. This effort has resulted in a fair amount of public discussion and controversy. This new zone was unanimously approved at the Tuesday, April 24 council meeting.

Here is some background and information on this project.

Anticipating the city’s needs is our job

It is the job of city government to plan well in advance for anticipated infrastructure needs. City staff must make an effort to stay on top of proposed legislation, anticipated population growth, housing market trends, land uses, and tax sources. It is a never-ending task that requires much study and a broad range of input sources to adequately plan and have ordinances in place.

We want to make sure we control development rather than development control us. We want to be proactive rather than reactive. We want to have well thought out requirements rather than having developers tell us how they are going to do it. This zone does not designate any particular property. We are adding another tool for a developer when requesting a zone change.

Trends in residential real estate

We have watched the supply of available housing shrink over the past 5 years. As of this writing, there were 196 homes available for sale on the board of realtors listing. In a “normal” year, there are 700 to 1,000 homes on the multiple listing. This isn’t just about “affordable” housing, it’s about “available” as well.

The recent selling prices of homes has continued to grow. Over the past five years, the price per square foot has gone up from $72 to $111, a 55 percent increase. What is the impact on housing prices and affordability? Have paychecks kept up with the rising costs of housing? Yours probably has not.

We have seen prices per acre for raw, undeveloped, unimproved land go from $25,000 to 35, 45, 55, and now in some cases $70,000 over the past five years. We have heard some are holding out for $100,000 an acre. Clearly, the era of inexpensive buildable land is gone.

At the same time, Envision Cache Valley and Envision Utah tells us they expect Cache Valley to double by the year 2050 or sooner. Meanwhile, generational preferences of millennials is toward smaller lots, more convenience.

A recent study on housing trends paints a stark picture of how serious the housing situation is in Utah — The Gardner Policy Institute of The University of Utah, March 2018 study, Housing Prices and the Threat to Affordability.

The Life Cycle Zone concept

For the past year, our planning commission and city staff has been working on updating our general plan which is the genesis of our city ordinances. Much of this Life Cycle ordinance has been driven by and closely considers objectives stated in the general plan. Other Utah cities have a similar ordinance under a title such as, “Mixed Use Residential.”

By our definition, a Life Cycle zone is master planned community with a mix of single family and multi-family structures that blend in with surrounding neighborhoods and includes open spaces, park space, walking paths. The maximum of one style of housing would be 50 percent. Purchase a starter home (townhouse); as family grows and more space is needed, purchase a traditional single-family home. It may also include active senior housing segment. You, your kids and grandkids could (in theory) all could live in the same neighborhood.

Minimums and maximums

The Life Cycle zoning ordinance includes minimums and maximums; lot size, number of dwelling units per acre, dwelling sizes, lot widths, setbacks, structure heights, parking, and green space. It also requires the developer submit a phasing plan that will be incorporated in to a Master Development Agreement which is binding on the land regardless of who owns the property.

Why a separate life cycle zone?

  • Control design of the neighborhood
  • Encourage green space
  • Encourage character compatible with surrounding neighborhoods
  • Provide for changes in housing preference by younger demographic
  • Promote affordable housing options
  • Efficient land use

Residents comments on housing trends, Life Cycle concept

“If we had to buy the house we live in today, we could not afford it.”

“We love Providence and we’d love to see our kids live here too. When will we see new development that our kids and grandkids can afford?”

“I’m part of the problem; I have 4 kids and 15 grandkids. They need a place to live. We’d like to see them here in Providence.”

“By only allowing single family traditional homes, we are pricing our children out of the housing market.”

“Higher density housing creates high crime areas.”

“Townhouse developments are run down after five years and property is poorly maintained.”

“We will see broken down cars and trash.”

“Nothing but renters and transients”

“Not in my neighborhood”


Providence has almost 200 townhomes that by design blend in to traditional residential neighborhoods.

  • Most are occupied by young couples or families and many with a college education and a dual household income.
  • We do not experience more police calls in these areas.
  • Properties are professionally maintained.
  • Housing dollars compete with other rising family costs.

Residents buying these homes are our children, neighbors and friends.

Email Correspondence with Councilman Baldwin

From: Laura and Bob
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 10, 2018
To: Councilman Jeff Baldwin

Hello Councilman Baldwin,

Mimi Recker wrote to Mayor Drew about the annexation. He told her the General Plan has already been finalized and adopted.

Even if the Council insists on annexing the land now, the annexation agreement should and could contain some limiting language as to future uses there, rather than a carte blanche for the developer(s). Ideally this would include no multi-family dwellings and no basements in houses where flooding is the norm. It also would include plain language about the developer paying for the bridge and for any transportation upgrades which will be needed to manage the added traffic. (Of course, without the multi-family dwellings, there will not be as much traffic as there will be with them included.)

The “open space” in the plat for Jackson’s subdivision is a joke, and the shortened setbacks are cheap and ridiculous looking. When multi-family zoning is introduced and used, the people tend to be much more transient in comparison to homeowners. They tend toward more litter, more junked tricycles in the yard, more motorcycle noise at very late hours and more yelling and loud music. One thing they do NOT do is take care of “appealing” landscaping. It goes to ruin.

Laura and Bob


From: Councilman Jeff Baldwin
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 17, 2018
To: Laura and Bob

Hi Laura and Bob,

The general plan is currently in review by city staff, for some reason the mayor wants the city staff to review it. The city council has not adopted it by vote yet. I made the argument several months ago that we should be working on the general plan and transportation plan before spending time on multi-family or other zones. I have opposed multi-family developments, as well as Roy, without design standards in place to protect the community from trash housing as well as other issues. Providence has no need of more multi-family units! I will continue to oppose these types of developments. We have a beautiful city and there is no reason that we should destroy it with poor developments. As far as the Chugg property and the road across spring creek this has been on the master plan for quite a while and I am currently reviewing the engineering to see what is planned. This information was not distributed to the council for review prior to the last council meeting. That is one reason I requested items 3 and 4 be pulled from the agenda.

You can count on me continuing the fight against multi-family in our city.

Councilman Baldwin


From: Laura
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 18, 2018
To: Councilman Jeff Baldwin

Dear Jeff,

Thank you ever so much for this response.

As of last week, it is widely known the Jeff Jackson has now announced he much. prefers not to pay for the bridge. We had the understanding that his willingness and commitment to build the bridge were central to the appeal his project had to the City Council (and even the Mayor). Our impression is that elimination of the developer’s willingness to pay for the bridge is a deal-killer. If the Council proceeds to approve the Jackson development plan without the bridge, this would either mean total traffic gridlock and havoc or having the City build a bridge to suit the needs of a developer (about $300,000?).

So current issues are at least:

  • wetlands presence and the Army Corp statement
  • possible flooding of houses built on the Chugg property (as houses built on both sides of the Spring Creek in that very area do now flood)
  • bridge financing
  • the other bridge (when wilt it be built)
  • inappropriate inclusion of multi-family zone proposals in established single-family neighborhoods a rush to judgement for the convenience of the applicant
  • a showing of acceptance (by Jackson) of the annexation by owners of property adjacent to the Chugg property

May I forward your statement to my Providence Watchdogs email list?

Thanks again.




From: Councilman Jeff Baldwin
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 22, 2018
To: Laura and Bob


Sure, you may forward my response to whoever you wish. I stand behind what I say.


Jeff Baldwin