Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 21-00310 - Birch Property - Approx. 301 S 12th W - Rezone to LDR1, LDR2, & LDR3 1 | Page #21 00310 Rezone from RR2 to LDR1, LDR2 & LDR3 Birch Property – Approx. 301 S 12th W 1. May 10, 2021, An application was received for a Rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), and Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3) from Brent Anderson. Application fees were paid in full. 2. May 24, 2021, Staff Reviews were completed and a Staff Review Report was sent to Brent Anderson. 3. May 25, 2021, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on June 8th and June 15th, 2021. Notice was mailed to neighbors within 300’ of the parcel. Applicant was notified of meeting date. Documents were loaded into the digital Commissioner. 4. June 17, 2021, Notice was posted on the property. 5. June 21, 2021, An agenda for the Planning & Zoning meeting was sent to Brent. The Commissioners were notified of the upcoming meeting. 6. June 24, 2021, Alan Parkinson presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 6:35PM – (21-00310) – Approx. 301 S 12th W – Rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) in a step-down approach from US Hwy 20 from Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) A previous rezone request of Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) for this property was denied on April 21, 2021. (action) – Brent Anderson Applicant Presentation – Brent Anderson – 3355 W Legacy Hills, Morgan, Utah – Brent is here for a rezone of the property on 12th W. His wife and her siblings met with the Mayor and Staff to determine a proposal that met the criteria identified in the zoning hearing where a previous request was denied. Low-density Residential 3 (LDR3) is against the freeway, stepping down to Low-density Residential 2 (LDR2), and then Low-density Residential 1 (LDR1) moving West. We feel this will be a good use of the property there. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Alan confirmed the meeting was held with Brent Anderson and the family. They considered the minutes from both Planning 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Reason for Decision City of Rexburg 2 | Page & Zoning and City Council suggesting a reduction in density. Staff presented options and the family submitted this new proposal. This application request fits within the Comprehensive Plan. The area can be serviced by the city. Staff recommends this application for recommendation to City Council for approval. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Vince Haley asked Alan to review the developers’ requirements for road improvements on 12th W. Alan said everything on their side of the road, which would be the East side of the road, would have to be built to city standards. This may mean moving the canal to the East or piping the canal to ensure water access. Brent Anderson and his family will have to work with the canal company on this issue. The road will be built out on the east side to meet the city standards. Vince confirmed the West side of the road would not be expanded until development occurs on the West side of the road. Alan continued; the road may reach a point requiring the road to be built-out, which could happen independent of tonight’s proposal, based on transportation studies. Vince asked if the developers would have to put in stubouts for city services on the side of the road where they are developing. Alan said stubouts would be required for all platted lots the developer is requesting. Chairman Kunz reminded the group we are looking at land use not projects. Greg asked where the road location would be to run through the zoning requested tonight. Alan said the developer would need to meet City Engineering Standards. The number of accesses would be determined by the Fire Department. The type of road would determine the applicable City Engineering Standards. A Plat would come before the Commission for deliberation. Chairman Rory Kunz opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:41PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: Wanless Southwick – 375 S 12th W – He is here by assignment by a group of neighbors to present their opinion for the zoning change. He has placed a sign “Stable Country Neighborhood” on the podium. Even before the City of Rexburg annexed our agricultural area from Madison County in 2003, we were a stable country neighborhood. At the time of annexation, Rexburg City designated our neighborhood as a Rural Residential zone (RR1 and RR2 areas) for (in the words of the ordinance) “the development and protection of stable country neighborhoods.” Subsequently, the agricultural land in our neighborhood on the east side of S 12th W street, has gradually developed into rural residential homes in accordance with the RR1 and RR2 zoning restrictions, beginning at Widdison Lane on the North and from W 1000 S (sometimes called Burmah Road) on the South. The area was located on the map. Wanless continued; this stable country neighborhood is something that is good for Rexburg. The RR1 and RR2 zoning regulations specifically permits “agricultural resource production”, whereas, the low, medium, and high-density residential zones do not. Rural residential lot sizes of one or one-half acre are consistent with a stable country neighborhood’s interest in self-reliance and home productions. That is why many of us built 3 | Page our homes in this neighborhood. We believe there are many others like us who want to move to Rexburg, who are looking for a stable country neighborhood where they can settle. This hearing is evidence that the owners of the 25-acre horse pasture in our neighborhood are ready to put residential housing on their parcel. We appreciate the fact that the City of Rexburg has rejected their previous proposals in 2007, 2010, and April 2021 to increase the value of their parcel by changing its zoning to permit crowding more residences onto the property that is allowed under Rural Residential zoning. We urge the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City of Rexburg to honor their commitment they made to us to protect our country neighborhood during the development of residential housing on the agricultural land in our neighborhood, by denying this petition to rezone for crowded housing, keeping the Rural Residential zoning designation, and thereby protecting this stable country neighborhood. Tammy Geddes – 1056 Green Willow Dr – She is here on assignment as well. Thank you for letting us come. You probably remember a lot of what was discussed last time; she does not feel she has to restate what has been said in the previous proposal. She apologized for making the previous meeting a weary, long meeting. This is why there will only be three representatives, unless someone really feels passionate about saying something that has not been spoken. We are hoping we are honoring the Commissioners’ time. People in the audience stood to show they hope the zoning would stay Rural Residential 2. Many of the audience members stood. These people live in homes from Widdison moving South on 12th W. Tammy is more of a numbers person. Does Rexburg need Rural Residential 2? The zoning in this area was shown. She tried to see how much High-density, Medium-density, Low- density, and Rural Residential zoning there is in Rexburg in each zone. There are only three subdivisions that have been developed as Rural Residential 2 (RR2). As Rexburg’s Family Community, do we have enough variance of zones for people in all stages of life? We have plenty for single-students. We have plenty for community housing. We have many starter homes. Do we have the next level, which is out of a starter home and a person wants a little more room inside and outside. Rural Residential 2 provides this space. Why do people want to move here? What is Rexburg’ curb appeal? Tammy leaned on the demographic information from the Census. She used numbers she found on a website for 2019 Census data. She wondered: Who lives here? Who owns what they live in? What are are units looking like? For Rexburg, renters are occupying sixty-eight (68%) percent of the housing and owners occupy thirty-two (32%) percent. For Idaho, the ratio is flipped. In Idaho, renter – occupied thirty (30%) percent and owners occupy seventy seventy (70%) percent. She thought, maybe it is our area, so she checked St. Anthony and Rigby. St. Anthony was closer to the Idaho ratios, and Rigby was almost in the middle. Is the college town making a difference? She looked at Pocatello. Renter occupied in Pocatello was thirty- seven (37%) percent and owner-occupied was sixty-three (63%) percent. Perhaps a larger place with a college would compare, like Provo, and the numbers were closer. Next, she looked at Boise for Boise State. Again, owner-occupied is a higher percentage than renter- occupied. Where is the city going? Is the focus on long-term residents or short-term 4 | Page residents? She looked at the Census numbers for multi-unit and single-unit housing. Sixty- eight (68%) percent are single-student units and single-units are only twenty-nine (29%) percent. Idaho, Rigby and St. Anthony unit ratios have higher percentage of single-units. Rexburg is heavy on multi-family units; we need more single-family units. This verified to her that more of the Rural Residential 2 zoning is needed. Next, she looked at the number of units occupied vs. the number of units that are vacant. She keeps hearing that Rexburg does not have enough places for people to live. For the numbers, twenty-six (26%) are showing they are vacant, which is the highest percentage across the board. Then, she looked at the stability in Rexburg. The numbers showed forty-five (45%) percent of the people who live here, move out. Where is our city going? It could be college students. It could be they are moving to adjoining cities. We know our city is growing. She wanted to illustrate in real numbers, the situation, and take some of the subjectivity out of the decision. Some of the people she represents have lived in their home for fifty years and some have built their home in the last few years. The bottom line is the people who live in this area love the country feel. The group is not against any kind of development in this area, but we want to support the city planning and what they want Rexburg to look like. Josh South – 2130 W 440 S – As a community, it was a good experience to share their thoughts. He tried to look at perspective. The landowners desire to get the highest and best use of their property. The difference is their perspective for the best use of their property is different. He recognizes that we all have our limited perspectives. This group and City Council, he hopes have a larger perspective through the Comprehensive Plan and proposals like this one with a long-term mindset. Many of the residents in this area would prefer to see the zoning remain as it is. If he understands the Comprehensive Plan correctly, there is a desire to have some higher density along Highway 20. He feels this is reasonable. Does this rezone help the city with the goals they have? The residents want to clearly share their perspectives, so it can be heard and considered in to aid in decision-making. Josh has not been in this area for very long. His family chose this place for the lifestyle and pace they enjoy. He appreciates we have our freedom and our right to share our opinions, and look at the issue from another perspective. Our trust is with the Commission to make the decision. Brent Harris – 1125 Widdison Ln – It has been stated there is a reason for zoning RR1 and RR2. As he recalls, these were new designations at the time the property was annexed into the city. He wants to say, what has changed that has negated the decision at that time? It was stated the developer met with Staff. He feels the citizens should have been involved in deciding the zoning, verses City Staff. Sharee Barton – 1076 Green Willow Dr – I know we all come from different backgrounds and different places. I come from humble beginnings. She remembers her first home she and her husband purchased thirty-three years ago in Salt Lake City. It had two bedrooms, one bathroom, and a single-detached, one-car garage. We thought we were in heaven, because we finally purchased our first home. Over the years, they put all kinds of upgrades into the home - sweat equity; we did all the labor ourselves. Then, they were able to sell and build a little bit bigger home as their family grew. Sharee and her husband went through this cycle one more time before moving to their home on Green Willow Drive. They designed the home on Green Willow Drive themselves with the intent of retiring in the home and living out the rest of their days there. They built the home themselves with a lot of sweat equity, fulfilling their dreams. She and her husband chose the area because of the Rural 5 | Page Residential zoning. It feels like a little punch to the stomach, after working together and building up the parcel, to see apartments and townhomes in her backyard. She encourages the Commission to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood if possible. Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Brent Anderson – He understands the neighbors’ concerns and feelings. He believes there were apartments along the freeway. He believes apartments are the best use along the freeway for young people who need a place to go. The chart showing seventy-four (74%) percent of the homes here are for renters; there is a reason. There is a shortage of places for kids to go. People are moving everywhere. He understands people feeling half- acre and one-acre is rural. This is not rural to him. There is a Comprehensive Plan showing a need for apartments and places. He does not believe single-family homes are the best use along the highway. Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:10PM. Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. Commissioners Discussion: Vince asked the Chairman for insight. Many people referenced the annexation of the property to the north in 2003. Do we have any need to consider this as a policy? Chairman Kunz clarified this is in reference to the formation of Rural Residential. The Commissioners’ job is to consider the Rural Residential and look at the community as a whole and where we want that zoning to be. We have to take into consideration where the growth is going to go, commercial and residential, and how that makes sense for the rest of the community. Back at the time Rural Residential was zoned in this area, the decision-makers were using the information they had at the time and the number of people they had at the time. When it comes to statistics, we love to use statistics. There was no Census in 2019, so he assumes the numbers were pulled from a website for the 2015 Census. This means the numbers were applicable six years ago. We need to take into consideration our current situation and information and take into consideration how this applies to today, five years from now, and ten years from now. Aaron Richards clarified the property is currently Rural Residential 2 (RR2). Today, the developer can create lots with a half-acre minimum. Alans said the minimum lot size in LDR1 is 12,000 square feet, then LDR2 is 10,000 square feet, and LDR3 is 10 units per acre. Aaron asked for the approximate dimensions of each of the zoning areas. 6 | Page Greg said he appreciates the Birches talking to Staff and working things out. He would like to see the land remain as RR2 with half-acre lots. This is more of how he envisions this area. When the high school went in, some of the area changed from a stable country neighborhood. Vince thought about that; we are not as the Planning & Zoning Commissioners in a position to be developers. We must make a decision about what is before us and not what could come before us or what we would like to come before us. He knows some really good people who live in Summerfield. Some people could be threatened by Summerfield. He feels this is a very welcoming community. He does not feel like putting something like Summerfield on this lot would harm the neighborhood. LDR1 vs. Rural Residential 2 are very similar except the lot size. Some of the twin homes and townhomes are a great benefit to this community. The schools are in place in this area. The infrastructure is in place. There is commercial growth both North and South of this property. He was definitely against the MDR. At this point, he does not feel he has heard an argument that would cause him to deny this proposal. He does not feel the neighborhood will be changed out of a country feel. Sally spoke about a lack of single- family housing in the area. The LDR will lead to single-family homes, which is what is nice in your neighborhood. We probably all agree the LDR3 against Highway 20 is a good use there. She wants to speak to the chart and the comparison to other areas. Over half of our population is students, so we are going to have a lot more rental properties than the other, bigger cities. Boise State is such a small part of Boise. BYU-Idaho is such a big part of our community. She believes this is a good proposal for this area; she likes the density. Greg sees the other Commissioners’ points. When Summerfield was built, an addition was needed to Burton Elementary School. A lot more development has been planned in that subdivision. With half-acre parcels, this would be fifty (50) homes; he believes that is enough for that area and the road. Chairman Kunz said there is more to the growth for Burton Elementary than the Summerfield Subdivision. If we are making our decision on that principle, we need to have all the information. Aaron said looking at the dimensions of the property for each zone does increase the density. Does it fit with the area? He encourages the group to study the Comprehensive Plan. He feels the LDR3 against Highway 20 is appropriate. The Applicant has met the request for what was presented to them to come back with a lesser density. This would fit with the Comprehensive Plan, the growth in the area, and the ability of the facilities to service the area. Todd said he sympathizes with those who want to keep the property rural. He agrees with Vince, the MDR was too much. He feels this approval better fits with the Comprehensive Plan. He would be for this application. 7 | Page MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the rezone of approximately 301 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3) for approximately 264’ from the Highway 20 right-of-way moving West to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) for 660’, and Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) for the remainder of land to S 12th W because the request matches the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, it is appropriate for the growth in the area, and the city has the infrastructure to service the request., Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. No: Greg Blacker. 7. July 7, 2021, the application was presented to City Council, by Alan Parkinson. Planning & Zoning Recommendation to Rezone approximately 301 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2), and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) #21-00310. Designated as Ordinance No 1263 if Motion Passes and Considered 1st Read – Alan Parkinson. Mayor Merrill explained the process of a rezone request by the property owner or developer. City Staff meets with developers on a daily basis. City Staff does not plan the development for the developer, they inform the developer of what is allowed in a particular zone. As the rezone process moves forward a public hearing is held in Planning and Zoning. During the public hearing, surrounding property owners have the opportunity to voice their opinion in favor, neutral or opposed to the proposal. A recommendation regarding the proposal from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Staff is given to City Council. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained on April 21, 2021, the property owners had requested the property be rezoned from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1). He said the initial rezone request was denied. The property owners are currently requesting their property at approximately 301 S 12th W be rezoned from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2), and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3). He reviewed a map of the property. The rezone request meets the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and Public Works requirements. 8 | Page Council Member Walker said because of the small amount of Rural Residential 2 (RR2) property in the city he prefers the property to maintain its current zone. Council Member Johnson read a quote from a resident who was quoting a previous City Council Member when this zone went into effect “for the development and protection of stable country neighborhoods”. She said she agrees with Council Member Walker in maintaining the current zone of the property. Currently, the city’s emphasis is on renters and she believes the emphasis should also be on stable long term residents as well. Council Member Flora said this presentation, although she was granted permission to give it, was not approved by or written by anyone in the city. She said she did not receive any information from the city; it is completely her own and does not represent anyone’s perspective but her own. To her friends and neighbors: Your organization, community spirit and the time and effort you have expended are more than commendable. The first proposal to put in Low density Residential 2 and Medium Density Residential 2 did not pass largely because of your efforts, your organization, your compelling arguments, and your passion for your community. That first proposal although it was allowed in the city’s vision and comprehensive plan, in my opinion, did not at this time fit in our rural residential neighborhoods. Because of your thoughtful presentations, I thought it only appropriate to expend as much time and energy on my own presentation as you spent on yours. I want to address many of the issues on both sides of this zone proposal as I can so that whatever decision is made all parties are heard and know true consideration was given in the decision tonight. Before I start I want to clarify that I do have a conflict of interest in this decision. I currently live in the Willowbrook neighborhood and although have stayed clear of ALL conversations regarding this matter during the two public hearings at planning and zoning, in the past 7 days I have had several members of my 9 | Page neighborhood ask me clarifying questions regarding the processes of planning & zoning, and informational questions regarding zoning rules. I have included in my presentation today anything that was discussed. If this prevents me from voting, please make that judgment after my presentation and know that I did my best to keep things informational and did not discuss how I thought the council would vote. This process of growth is exhausting. At times the residents don’t feel heard, feel dismissed, and/or not valued as long-time community members. This is why regular people like those sitting before you get involved. Let’s first talk about growth. Here is a zoning map of Rexburg’s current zones. Starting at the center of town you have the purple and blue zones that represent commercial and mixed use, here is BYU-Idaho. Notice the light brown areas around that represent high-density housing. This dark outline is what is called the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone or PEZ for short. This zone is where the city designates and encourages high- density housing. The medium density housing are the dark and light orange colors. The shades of yellow are all low-density housing and the green is the rural residential housing. For your information the pea soup areas are public facilities like schools, county/city buildings, parks etc. I’d like to discuss Tammy Geddes’ findings of rental properties verses stable single family housing. Knowing Tammy like I do, she spent hours of her time making sure her information was factual and true. She reported that 68% of housing was occupied by rentals and homeowners occupied 32%. Compared to the state of Idaho with 70% owner occupied housing and 30% rental occupied. This is a cause for concern, at least for me. 10 | Page Let me remind each of us that government does not drive demand. What I’m saying is that our city does not seek out developers for certain types of residential housing. Instead market drives demand. What could potentially drive the demand for so many rentals? 1. Madison County’s median age is 22 years old. Our population is young, almost the youngest in our country. At the younger stages of life, jobs aren’t permanent and most do not purchase homes. Likewise, young adults cannot afford larger lots and larger homes. 2. Over the past 5 years BYU-Idaho has expanded. Several times while I have sat on city council, BYU representatives have come to city council letting us know they are short beds. 3. People are moving to Rexburg. Whether they are coming for jobs, following their children, work online; there has been an increase of population which then creates demand. So why the huge flip flop in statistics? Why are we not more comparable to Pocatello, Boise, or Provo? The answer lies with the makeup of our community. Close to 60% of our population are our wonderful BYU- Idaho citizens. In our 2020 census we are guessing 20,000 of our 34,0000 people are students. This aligns with our renter statistics. As for the statistic of 26% being vacant, I am unaware of the reasons behind the vacancies. However, if that statistic is within the past year I am guessing this has to do with covid, the shutdown of face-to-face classes and the ability to come to BYU-Idaho regardless of where you live. I do know that our market demand has also flip-flopped in the past year and while previous years have seen a large amount of new apartment complexes being built, this past and current year more residential houses are being built to address the demand for single-family dwellings. What is the city doing about the surge of growth? 1. We continue to look to the future and make sure our water, sewer, and other essential services are available. 2. We increase staff in our police, fire and other departments as our city grows 3. Our school district continues to make plans for additions on existing buildings and additional buildings in the growing areas of our city 4. We update our comprehensive plan and vision for what our city could look like in 10 years 5. We have additional roads and streets planned and continue to work on our 10-year-streets plan for upgrades and maintenance. As of this week this is the amount of zoned acreage allotted within the city limits and impact areas in Rexburg. If we add the high and medium density zones we have just over 663 acres. Our low-density acreage is 1,817 and there is 1,643 acres of rural residential zoned acres. 11 | Page As you might be aware, most of the land within the city center is built out. So of course the cheapest land lies on the outskirts of our city. In a growing city this is where the growth mainly happens. What are the city’s options? 1. Do not grow at all – keep everything the same 2. Continue to annex and provide for the needs of the individuals and families who are moving here As a city we have opted for to continue to annex and grow. How do we manage growth? Our city has a comprehensive plan. This is the vision of where different zones should go and where the city should hold developers accountable. Yet even with a comprehensive plan each proposal brought into the city is looked at on an individual case by case. Just because a zone is allowed in the comprehensive plan, does not mean it is the right thing to do. The city staff’s job is to see if it fits the comprehensive plan and if we have the infrastructure to accommodate the proposal. The P&Z/City Council’s job is to make sure it makes sense and they have the ability to approve or to deny. Remember the comprehensive plan is a future vision and what zones are allowed in that vision. The zoning is more of a tool to help developers understand what is allowed. Tonight the city council has to decide to either approve or deny the zone change from RR2 to LDR1, LDR2 and LDR3. 12 | Page I spent some time looking at our current zoning and driving around with my phone and taking some very professional pictures of different zoned neighborhoods. (Show slides) 13 | Page 14 | Page Are these types of stable neighborhoods a fit for this area? That is not as simple as it might appear. On the one hand, yes they are! These neighborhoods are low-density stable family homes. These are great places to live and would fit into this area and enhance the stable environment. Because the property doesn’t sit next to either of the Rural residential neighborhoods on either side, in my mind almost dictates that the other two fields have to buffer between the Rural residential and the Low density. This creates a protection for the neighborhoods on either side because a developer will not be able to reasonably request a medium or high density. In fact in my opinion the developers would need to buffer between what is proposed and what is currently there. 15 | Page But it is not that simple. After hearing all the testimonies and reading all the letters, I went back and read the planning and zoning and the city council minutes from September 2002 till March 2003. This was the period when the city proposed and then annexed 12th west and everything east of 12th west. Lawyers were involved, petitions were signed, town hall meetings were held, heated debates and angry citizens wrote letters to contest this proposal. At this point just the first part of Willowbrook neighborhood was built along with the Parson’s neighborhood, most of the homes on 12th west and Widdison. The city was also in a time of huge growth. These community members had actually built in the county and were now being annexed to the city. They already had septic tanks and wells and the cost to switch over to city water and sewer was expensive. As part of the compromise of annexation the city reduced hook-up fees and created the Rural Residential zone to protect the neighborhood. Most residents looked on this as a promise to protect their area from the encroachment of higher densities. From all my research though I cannot find any verbal promises that it would remain that way forever, I feel like the city implied that promise. Many of these same residents are here now fighting again for that promise to be fulfilled. So now the dilemma! There is a demand for single family housing in good stable neighborhoods. Currently all the low-density housing areas are full and are hard to find. Due to the low supply people are going out to the county to build. They are building in Rigby and other growing local communities because Rexburg’s inability to provide neighborhoods with an LDR1 or 2 that meets those needs. Yes we do have summerfield neighborhood, which is a great neighborhood. Although Summerfield has an LDR 2 zone, this is what the city calls a planned unit development or a PUD. A PUD is a way to build into a development some open space and then allows the developer a higher density. Because of this higher density in some areas it resembles 16 | Page more of an LDR3 and MDR2. Again this is a PUD and this higher density is allowed because they have over 700 acres in this community. What is in this development is not currently proposed for the 25-acre parcel we are discussing tonight. While some people love a larger lot, others still want the nice stable neighborhoods, larger homes on smaller lots. Where now do we put LDR1 and LDR2 neighborhoods? While our city does need more Rural residential neighborhoods, what about Low density 1? If we deny this proposal are we pushing stable neighborhoods elsewhere? Living on the outskirts of town is HARD! There are lots of hard decisions to be made and until there is something built in the ground there is no law against anyone coming to the city and making their proposal. The only way for a neighborhood to control what is put in next to them is for the members to buy the property themselves and develop it the way they want. Developing land is a gamble. In order to put the financial backing to a project, it must pencil out as they say. The developer has to put in the infrastructure and then hope they are able to sell the lots to recoup the cost plus they also want to make a profit. Costs for building have skyrocketed yet low-density housing is still being demanded right now. Do we chance the prices come down and some developer will eventually want to develop another rural residential neighborhood? What do we do? I would like to conclude with a Memo written by Winston dyer who was the chair of the planning and zoning commission when Ricks College announced the 4 –year BYU-Idaho decision and all the annexations were being proposed and approved: 17 | Page 18 | Page Council Member Flora said her decision is neutral because she understands the resident’s concerns and the developer’s. The Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) and LDR2 may assist to keep the Rural Residential Zone safe. On the other hand, she understands there was a promise made to the residents in the Rural Residential Zone that the surrounding properties 19 | Page would maintain the RR Zone. There are concerns a different developer may decide to request a rezone of their property to a Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) or MDR2. Mayor Merrill asked Public Works Director Davidson to explain the cost associated with infrastructure due to growth. Public Works Director Davidson said the further the sprawl from the city infrastructure the less number of residents are paying into the infrastructure expenses causing an increased amount of cost to the current residents for the extended water and sewer lines. He said when the city is considering annexation of a certain area, he councils to not leapfrog a wastewater lift station. The higher the density the increased number of residents paying into the cost of infrastructure. The costs are balanced with zoning and the market. The larger the lots the higher demand on the city’s water system for irrigation. Mayor Merrill said he believes the rezone request is a good compromise between the property owner and surrounding residents. The city is in need of the LDR1 and LDR2 Zones and the LDR3 Zone is located along the freeway. He has noticed lots along the freeway have not sold in the Pine Brook Subdivision; it may be that the lots are less desirable because of their proximity to the freeway. Mayor Merrill clarified in the past minutes he has read he did not find wording eluding to a promise to keep this area Rural Residential. The City Council Members have the responsibility of balancing between upholding property rights and protecting neighborhoods. He mentioned the mixed desires of the residents living in the surrounding properties before the Starlight and Henderson Subdivisions were built. Some residents at that time weren’t pleased with losing some of the county feel; however, a lot of great residents now live in those subdivisions. Council Member Mann commended Council Member Flora on her presentation to City Council. He said growth is going to happen and it has to be planned wisely. When the original proposal was before City Council he voted against the rezone request. As a community he believes they should ensure there are various housing options for the residents of Rexburg. Council Member Flora said her presentation was given as a member of City Council; however, if she was making a decision as a citizen, she would prefer the lower density. She moved near this location to have the lower density. One of the aspects in the LRD2 and LDR3 Zones is that they allow for twin homes; however, there are LRD2 neighborhoods that only have single family homes. As City Council members they do not know the intention of the developer. City Council has to make a decision without knowing what is going to be built. They have to decide based on what the zone allows. She explained as a City Council member she agrees with Council Member Mann the city needs LDR1 and LDR2 Zones, she is not in favor of the LDR3; however, only four acres would be zoned LDR3. The rezone proposal would benefit our community; it has been a while since City Council has decided on a LDR1 proposal. 20 | Page Council Member Flora mentioned the property in this proposal is not abutting the RR1 Zone because there is property owned by different owners on both sides of this neighborhood. There is a possibility the developer could come back and request a high density in the future. She said if the developer comes back to request a higher density her vote will be nay and if the developer later asks for a Plan Unit Development her vote will be nay. In her opinion if this rezone is approved it will protect the RR1 Zone from medium and high densities because there would need to be a buffer between the zones. Council Member Johnson said she lives in an LDR2 Zone and does not consider it a stable neighborhood. There are four homes on her block that are rentals and about eight families have moved to the county to have a larger lot. She believes there is a need in the city for the larger lots allowed in the RR1 Zone. She said if the city doesn’t provide the larger lots, residents will move to the county and the city will lose tax dollars. The city will not be able to obtain RR1 Zones in the future. Mayor Merrill said as the city grows and more properties from the Impact Zone are annexed there is the potential of having more RR1 Zones. He said he is in favor of this request because the LDR1, LDR2 and LDR3 Zones allow for residents to have the option of different lot sizes. Council Member Walker said he agrees with Council Member Johnson once the RR1 Zone changes to a different zone; it will be difficult to recuperate this type of zone. The annexation of property into the city is unknown and could take longer than expected dimensioning the possibilities of having more RR1 zoned property. Council President Busby mentioned most developers will build to the maximum allowed in the zone for financial gain and that is a concern for him. He said he is also concerned with the additional traffic the higher density will cause on an already high traffic road. Council Member Johnson moved to deny the rezone at approximately 301 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2), and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3); Council President Busby seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson Council Member Flora Council Member Walker Council Member Mann Council President Busby The motion carried.