HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 22-00418 - Courtyards of Pine Brook - Comp Plan Map change to LDR1-MDR1
1 | P a g e
#22 00418
Comprehensive Plan Map change
from Rural to LDR1-MDR1
Lot 15-25 Block 6 Pine Brook Estates DIV2
1. June 13, 2022, An application was received for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from
Rural to LDR1-MDR1 from Aaron Richards and fees were paid.
2. June 21, 2022, Staff Reviews were completed.
3. June 27, 2022, The Staff Report was submitted. Notice was sent to the newspaper to be
published on July 5th and July 12th, 2022.
4. June 29, 2022, Notice was mailed to all property owners within 350’.
5. July 14, 2022, Notice was posted on the property.
6. July 19, 2022, Written response was received from Paige Lowry.
7. July 20, 2022, Written response was received from Beth Hendricks, Cameron Robins, Selena
Robins, and Raylene Eldridge.
8. July 21, 2022, Written response was received from Brandon Winter, Ray Church, Jared
Peterson, and Jill Peterson.
July 21, 2022, The application was presented to the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
1. (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 (action)
(0:03:25)
Aaron recused himself. McKay said earlier this
Spring when the request came forward, he was a part
of the project. When it was denied, he removed
himself from the group that is moving forward with
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 | P a g e
tonight’s request. Vince asked if McKay has any financial interest that would be gained by
McKay if this item was approved. He said no, nothing but the money he lost in the Spring.
While the applicant’s presentation was coming up on the screen, Vince confirmed that there
are no hearing for August 4th. Tawnya answered there are none, but a plat could be ready.
Applicant Presentation: Aaron Richards –
351 Talon Dr – He is the owner of Refuge
Homes. On April 7, 2022, the Planning &
Zoning Commission approved a
Comprehensive Plan Map change from Rural
to LDR1-MDR1 for a section of nine (9) lots
in the Pine Brook DIV2 subdivision. In the
same meeting, the Commissioners were short
one vote to approve the subsequent zoning
change from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to
Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). In an
unprecedented stalemate, the zoning case died.
City Council saw P&Z was split and went
ahead and denied the request. The application
was for twinhomes for the lots backing up to
Hwy20. The feedback the applicant received
was they did not want an attached housing
product. Some comments made were we do
not want those types of people and that kind
of use in our neighborhood. There was also
some concern about the minimum 5,000 sq.ft.
lot size. He listened to the homeowners,
reevaluated the product, and believes he has
come to some middle ground.
The same lots originally requested are still
included, he added the two bookends to
represent all the lots that back to Hwy 20, and are
now requesting a change in Comp Plan and
zoning to LDR1. There is a significant difference
between Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) and
Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). These lots
are being branded as the Courtyards of Pine
Brook.
(He showed a colored map of the 11 lots
showing ownership.) The dark brown lots are
owned by Curtis Ferney Gray lots owned by
Hinge Point Builders. On the east side the lots
are vacant, owned by a homeowner or the
original developer. On the west side of the road,
a home builder owns two lots, and the
Pettengills, the Wells, the Bennetts, the Hruskas,
3 | P a g e
the Allphins, and the Churches own a lot.
The challenges of developing a home product at this particular location is there is a twenty
(20’) foot rear setback from the highway right-of-way to the backdoor of the houses in the
Rural Residential 2 (RR2) zone. The current selling price of the product is $750,000 in the
community right now. There is an obligation to do some kind of permanent screening for
not only the product but also the community. Between the April hearing and now, the
applicant learned at the end of Castle Pines Rd has a temporary turn-around platted on the
north three (3) lots. Unfortunately, the developer never completed the street. Three lots do
not have street frontage, which makes problems with the Fire Marshall, and those
homeowners cannot get a final Certificate of Occupancy (CO). HK Contractors, a local
paving company bid the finishing of the road at $80,000. This is unfair to put on the
Pettengills as a house-warming gift. The LDR1 zone is for single-family, detached homes.
The size of homes and “detached homes” are the same as the rest of the lots in Pine Brook.
The LDR1 lot size creates enough single-family units to address the screening and finish out
the road. The original lots have been on the market for 13 ½ years since 2009. The lots are
stale improvements for the tax rolls of the city. Current municipal value on those eleven (11)
lots is $165,000. When this project is built out, the taxable value would be $500,000 -
$545,000 per lot. This will allow the project in Pine Brook DIV2 to complete.
Commissioner Questions: Vince asked if there is an agreement with the HOA. Aaron
said the HOA is in a fractured state because of the way the April hearing concluded. The
board is in the process of turning over. There are no clear communication lines. The
Development Agreement was for the LDR2 zone, which allowed more density than the
developer was going to plat. The HOA wanted some kind of documentation for the cap of
density the developer and HOA had agreed on. The project can move forward without a
Development Agreement, but he would be happy to sit down with the HOA.
Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – We have been down this road before for this change to
the Comprehensive Plan Map. Nothing has really changed. The request is to change
designations from Rural to LDR1-MDR1. Staff believes fits within the statutes of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Questions: Eric asked if there were any contiguous properties with this
same designation. He confirmed Rural Residential is on all sides of the request. Eric asked
Alan to help him understand the idea of this request and the idea of “spot zoning”. Alan
said this is not an example of “spot zoning”. Chairperson Smith clarified the Commission
are considering the Comprehensive Plan change. She asked about the minimum lot size in
LDR1. Alan said the minimum lot size in LDR1 is twelve thousand (12,000sq. ft.) square
feet. In Rural Residential 2 (RR2) the minimum lots size is one-half acre. The lots are not
being truly split in half for the minimum lot size of 12,000 sq.ft. Brad asked if the LDR1-
MDR1 designation is for units or lot size. Alan explained the Comprehensive Plan identifies
a range for zoning. Vince confirmed the applicant is asking for a Comp Plan to change,
which would then allow a zone change. To change the lot sizes, a plat would have to be
approved by the governing bodies. Correct? Alan confirmed. Vince said the setback
requirements would change. LDR1 is only single-family detached homes. Alan said one (1)
unit per lot is all that is allowed. Alan visited with Keith that the road would be maintain the
same road structure to match the Rural Residential; there will be a seven (7’) feet swale and a
4 | P a g e
five (5’) feet wide sidewalk and one (1’) foot of ribbon curb. Vince continued the rear
setback changes from twenty (20’) feet in RR2 to twenty-five (25’) feet in LDR1. Side
setback minimum increases from six (6’) feet to seven and one-half (7 ½’) or six (6”:1’)
inches for every one foot of building height, whichever is greater. The maximum building
height changes from twenty-five (25’) feet to thirty (30’) feet. The setbacks are gaining.
Going from RR2 to LDR2 allows an increase in density and five (5’) more feet in building
height.
Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:58PM. (21:59)
Vince requested anyone who wants to speak for each point of view to speak no matter if the
view is the same as your neighbor’s.
Favor:
Greg Jensen - 366 Talon Drive – Greg has lived in Rexburg for about five years. He is a
sixth generation Idahoan. His family lost their family farm. Greg moved to Utah and started
his business, which became successful. He wanted to raise his family in Idaho. After his
business became successful, he was able to choose where he wanted to live. The community
needs growth. Greg’s children need places to work or those children will have to move to
find work. The only large employer is the college. We need growth here in Rexburg. People
need to be able to afford housing or the young families will leave our community. His
neighbor just listed their home at $230 per square foot. He asked the Commission to tell him
a college student that could afford that price.
Mary Maroon – 367 Talon Drive – Mary and her husband are both business professors at
the University. She has moved from New York and Chicago hoping to escape really high
home prices. She has found herself in the same situation, where young families cannot afford
housing. We live in a semi-rural area and our children need options. She wants her children
to grow up and stay in this area. She is in favor of these public projects that will allow more
housing at a cheaper price. This will keep our city thriving.
Neutral: None
Opposed:
Alexandra Holt – 862 Pine Brook Ln – She lives three (3) lots from the proposed changes.
Alexandra has taken information from the City Council and P&Z Commission meetings.
During the closing remarks, during the changes to the Comprehensive Plan proposed in
April, one of the Commissioners asked the developer to work with the homeowners to come
to an agreeable plan for a solution that would benefit all. There has been a lack of
communication between the developers and the homeowners. She tried to email Mr.
Richards with the email from her public records request; the email did not work. She would
like to see how the twenty (20) homes will be put on the nine (9) lots. The posting in the
front of the neighborhood was removed by someone and it has not been there for about a
week. On the notice she received, the change was to LDR1, but now she is hearing the
change is from LDR1-MDR1. Alexandra feels there has been a lack of information or
misinformation. In previous meetings, Vince made a motion to deny the request “based on
the inconsistencies of the neighboring properties”. (This motion was withdrawn.) While the
developers have moved forward toward single-family residential homes, twenty homes on
those back lots is still dangerous for traffic and movement in the neighborhood. The
5 | P a g e
Mayor’s informal study claimed that single-family homes generate six (6) times the traffic of
a multi-family homes. The neighborhood has many families with children and some adults
with disabilities. She feels adding additional traffic from more units that only have two
accesses through the entire neighborhood make a dangerous situation. She has small children
and it scares her to see the increase of traffic. Council Member Johnson said, “the
Comprehensive Plan Map is a vision or a guiding document. Most, developers use the map to gage
how the city is developing in certain areas of the city. One of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan
is to preserve the community. She feels this change to the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t fit with the
existing development. The Low Density Residential One (LDR1) and Medium Density Residential
One (MDR1) Zones do not fit the existing development.” Another Council member said by
changing the zoning of these lots, we would be showing developers would could happen in
Rexburg – (this claim was not found in the Council or P&Z minutes in April). Alexandra believes
the community would not support a precedent for a row of undeveloped lots to change
zoning with little to no notice to the neighborhood. She does not care about a freeway
buffer; she new the freeway would be there when she moved into her home. Twelve
neighbors that live in close proximity to the freeway, herself included, mentioned a freeway
buffer would not be a relevant exchange for the lifelong traffic this request would cause.
Pine Brook is one of the only neighborhoods on the north side of the freeway and within
the city limits. An increase in the allotted home size would not be in the best interest of the
community. She indicated the neighborhood at Pine Brook is one of a kind. Council
Member Colin Erickson stated, “he understands the property lots closer to the highway may be
more difficult to sell because of the noise; however, there are housing developments all along Interstate
15” He claimed the lots had been sold in groups instead of individually. In City
Council, Council Member Busby talked about an agreement with the City for a berm as a
sound barrier for the lots and asked it hadn’t been built. Mr. Zollinger said the City has had
to go back to the Development Agreement several times over the course of thirteen (13)
years as the lots have developed. Keith clarified the berm is along 12th W, not along Hwy 20.
Development Agreements stay with the land. Council Member Erickson said a berm would
be more appealing to buyers. Council Member Flora said , “if the developer knew these lots
were going to be difficult to sell because they are against the freeway. When the original plat for the
subdivision was completed, and the existing zone was requested. Why were the LDR1 and MDR1
zones not originally requested? If they foresaw that these lots were going to be hard to sell. Why did
they not request this higher density zone from the beginning?” Alexandra said she called a real
estate agent and the lots are being sold to developers and not sold to individuals. Changes to
the zone for the residents who live in the neighborhood is unfair. Overall, the neighborhood
people she talked to preferred the building of eleven (11) single-family homes as proposed
and deny this request.
Jenny & Michael Ferris – 859 Pine Brook Ln – They live one lot from the proposed zone
changes. She does not feel that the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the rezone are
needed. Jenny believes the claim of building a million dollar home that will not sell is false. A
million dollar home is not needed; this is the product the applicant sells. The request also
does not help with affordable housing. The original lots in Pine Brook DIV2 have been sold;
6 | P a g e
however, thirty (30) of them currently sit empty, in addition to the eleven (11) lots looking to
rezone tonight. Thirty (30%) percent of the subdivision are undeveloped; a year ago, this was
forty (40%) percent. Yellow are occupied, green held by developers or other people who
have bought property and have not built, orange have been moved into or are under active
construction within the last six (6) months. The red ones are the ones where construction
appears to be stalled. The lots still have time to sell; it is too soon to say these lots need to be
rezoned in order to sell. A lot adjacent to the golf course has also not been sold and has
been on the market for a year. From her understanding, there was a Development
Agreement that included the sound wall berm. Even though ninety (90%) of the lots have
been sold, why hasn’t the developer installed the berm? Why doesn’t the city make the
developer put it in? The issue of the cul-de-sac? The city should have bonded for these
issues and retained the money until the issues were resolved; this is the fault of the city.
Jenny claims Todd Webb told her that Todd owns fourteen properties and only one of them
is under contract. Much of the building in the neighborhood has happened in the last three
(3) years, even though before that the lots had sat for about a decade. She has a disabled son,
who has developmental disabilities and autism; he is a flight risk. She chose the location of
her home with minimal hazards. Jenny expected the subdivision to fill in, but she did not
expect the number of residents to double. The more cars; the greater the danger. Her family
moved into their home in December 2021. Jenny said the previous request was doubling the
number of residents on the lots; this is the same request. What would stop the zoning of the
entire neighborhood?
Ryan Hruskah – 1111 Castle Pines Rd – Ryan lives directly across the street from the
proposed changes. As you can tell, most people are in opposition to the request. He was
adamantly against the previous request. He wants to express his opposition for this request
also. Initially, the reasoning was the lots could not be sold; you have heard tonight
comments that counteract that claim. Expensive homes do exist along freeways. What makes
this request any different? Eleven (11) lots are not selling, and now the developer is making
that twenty (20) lots that do not sell. You are looking for people who are established to
occupy these homes. Cheaper homes can go somewhere else in Rexburg for recent grads.
The market is heading into a recession. The number of home permit applications is slowing
across the country. Ryan has heard several reasons why the request should not be approved
concerning traffic, a berm, or density. He is against this request. He has four (4) children. As
far as the Comprehensive Plan, he knows a new change is being made. The legal team
mentioned the land is not rural – there are no agriculture and ranching uses on the land; here
there are single-family homes. Ryan said the rural designation means residential on larger
lots. Ultimately, this is all about money. The Commissioners are in charge of taking care of
the residents of Rexburg, not the developers or builders.
Ann Dougherty – 934 Pine Brook Ln – Ann agrees with what has been shared. She does
not feel in the neighborhood the issue was between attached and unattached homes. The
vision of the neighborhood should not change; this is unfair. The neighborhood is enclosed
with two entrances or exits. People cannot pick up and move in today’s market. She is
against the request.
Mindy Hancock – 935 Pine Brook Ln – She bought her home two (2) months ago. She
received a letter in the mail for notification of tonight’s meaning. Mindy is against the
request. She agrees with what has been said. The reason she purchased her home was to
7 | P a g e
allow her children to run and play. She is asking the Commissioners to deny the request
because the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan.
David Reeser – 1196 Torrey Ln – His road connects with McJon Lane due to traffic. In
April, he could have cared less about the buildings, but his concern with the doubling of
capacity at the end of the subdivision. David lives along one of the entrances or exits to the
subdivision. He has seen an increase in traffic over the last two years as he has lived in the
neighborhood. David is against the proposal.
Written Correspondence: (see the following pages)
#1 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Paige Lowry – 1101 Castle Pines Rd.
8 | P a g e
#2 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Beth Hendricks – 941 Larch Ave
9 | P a g e
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
#3 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Cameron Robins – 331 Eagle Summit
13 | P a g e
#4 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Selena Robins – 331 Eagle Summit
#5 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Brandon Winter – 588 Terra Vista Dr.
14 | P a g e
#6 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Raylene Eldridge – 1101 Castle Pines Rd.
15 | P a g e
#7 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Ray Church – 1101 Castle Pines Rd.
#8 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Jared Peterson – 988 Pine Brook Ln
16 | P a g e
#9 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Jill Peterson – 988 Pine Brook Ln
Rebuttal: Aaron Jensen – He has been a developer for twenty-five (25) years. The
comments regarding traffic do not apply. If you look at National Highway Standards and
average trips per single family unit; it is one (1) trip per two and one-half (2 ½) hour. This is
the exact number of trips the homeowners create. The request is a minimal boost in density.
Traffic safety and drunk drivers coming off the highway is a greater danger than people
driving twenty-five in a subdivision. The home sizes will be equivalent to those in the
community. These lots are not prime real estate. Aaron is an opportunity to create a lifestyle
product with stale real estate to compliment the neighborhood. Interest rates are rising;
those people who just closed on their homes will not be able to afford them in the Spring of
2023. This will create movement and housing opportunities for those graduates.
Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 7:31PM.
Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Smith 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.
Commissioner Discussion: She reminded the Commissioners that the Comprehensive
Plan Map is being considered, not the zone change. Vince clarified eleven (11) lots are in the
proposed area and this will not change with the approval of this application or the rezone.
The size of the lots are not being changed tonight. Bruce confirmed the lots are eleven (11)
½ acre lots. Randall said he is not basing his decision on a project, only on the land request.
McKay asked about Keith’s feedback for traffic. Alan answered Keith saw no problems
with the traffic; the roads can support the change. The cul-de-sac discussed tonight is also a
stub-out for future development to the north. On the Staff Report, the Public Works
Director looks at the streets, the water, and the sewer. The lift station at Pine Brook is built
to service future development above Pine Brooks needs. Chairperson Smith is in real
estate. The lots expired several times and have been available separately. Vince clarified
expired means the listing had expired on the lots, because they had been on the market for
17 | P a g e
three hundred four (304) days. Vince said he remembers the fun we had last time. Last time,
he did not feel it was fair to change these lots to LDR2 and enable buildings different than
others in the community, without having the community onboard; he still feels that way. He
does not want to discount changing the neighborhood. Vince says the zones are very similar.
Jim said, at the same time, we need to look at what the potential is in the new zone. With
the change, a developer could put in more lots and would have to go through the plat
process. Vince explained when a Comp Plan Map change is made to LDR1-MDR1, and
someone requests the MDR1 zone, the Commission does not have to grant the MDR1 zone
because it is an allowed zone in the Comprehensive Plan Map designation range. Jim wants
to comment on the comment made the Commission is responsible for “taking care of the
residents”. The residents and the landowner’s rights both have to be considered. Randall
said if you plan to deny the plat, why would we approve the Comp Plan Map change today.
McKay looked back at the minutes and many of the comments were based on the style the
developer was proposing: twinhomes, townhomes, duplexes, connected units. He comes
from a developer background and after the previous hearings, the developer listened and
came back with a different proposal. In the LDR1 zone, the units will not be connected
units in a twinhome, duplex, or townhome style. Anywhere you go, there is buffer zoning. It
would have been advantageous for the original developer to buffer from the very beginning.
These lots are owned by people also. It is not unusual for someone to say, this is not
working, we are going to do a step down buffer to make this land work. Randall said if a
change is made tonight to make this first step, and change the Comprehensive Plan Map
designation, this would give the HOA time to get with the developer to compromise. The
developer has made changes in response to the neighborhood’s comments. There is some
danger in leaving the project undone. There is truth on both sides.
Eric is concerned about the egress. If the turn around had another egress, the traffic issue
may not be as concerning. He is weighing the pros and cons; he is thinking about who
benefits from this proposal? He does not see the neighborhood benefitting from additional
homes. The city does not necessarily benefit; he sees how an argument could be made for a
lower price point and, in a round-about way, providing more affordable housing. The
developer is gaining the benefits. Chairperson Smith disagrees; she believes approving this
request could benefit the community as a whole, which is who the Commissioners are here
to think about. There are few areas to build homes in the city limits. Many of the requests
lately have been for condo plats.
Jim said there are currently two (2) points of egress people can use. He does not see the
traffic being an issue. Even if the lots are replatted, the number of lots is not going to
increase significantly to cause traffic issues. Randall asks those involved to ponder on the
request and consider if the change is really as scary as they are thinking. Once homes are
built, they are built. Vanessa says she is new to this situation and she loves listening to
peoples’ concerns and thoughts about this. Thinking about the Comprehensive Plan Map
change - she is on the fence. As she thinks from the point of view of a home owner, she
would love to see something other than dirt and a highway. She does not feel the added lots
down the road will cause a large increase in traffic. Todd asked can the same house be built
in RR2 as LDR1. Is a zone change needed?
18 | P a g e
Aaron explained the answer is simple math. There are eight lots under contract. To spread
the cost for $80,000 of the completion of the cul-de-sac, there is almost double the cost
needed for berming if the number of lots increases, and you still have to hit a $500,000
product level. Static costs have to be spread across all the lots; you have to have screening to
sell the lots; you have to complete the street to get the Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.).
Some of the work is still being covered by the developer – for free, for practice. Under the
existing zoning (RR2) there are eight (8) lots, a house can be built, but with the additional
costs of the cul-de-sac, berm, etc. additional lots need to be built to cover costs.
Vince says he is outgrowing his current lot and he is moving out the county because in the
city there are no lots with the acreage that he would like. Do we preserve larger lots in the
city? Or do we push the larger lot sizes out into the county?
Randall said we sometimes wish we could tell a developer what to do. Sometimes you have
to let the market determine the rest. If a developer is willing to finish the project, the
community may be able to come to terms with the changes. The Commission has the ability
to table the request to give more time for consensus between the developer and the
neighborhood. Vince said we initially heard this in April and now it is July and things are still
not resolved. He would pass this motion. But if the developer comes back with a plat
change, Vince would not support it, even though he has heard the developer cannot make
money without a plat change. McKay asked Vince why he would take the land to a new
designation, knowing he would deny a plat change; why would Vince not deny this initial
request?. Vince said we have to recognize the rights of the developer, but we do not have to
default in favor of the developer. He would vote in favor of this request based on the rights
of the developer tonight. Randall does not agree with Vince.
McKay said the concern of an increase of traffic came up several times in the public input.
If you have sixty (60) lots and you increase by nine (9) lots, you have added an increase in
traffic of six (6%) percent in the entire neighborhood; the traffic is not doubling – the
number of lots is not doubling to one hundred twenty (120) homes. The roads, built to city
standards, have the ability to hold eight to ten (8-10) times more traffic then they are
currently carrying. Vince’s thoughts go back to preserving the integrity of the
neighborhood. If he were a homeowner and had just built across the street, expecting a
certain number of neighbors, I would not want to see this change. Brad is looking at the
proposal before the Commission for a Comprehensive Plan change; he has been listening to
everyone’s comments and they are based upon the future. If something happens, they do not
like the request. Tonight, the Comp Plan change allows for future possibilities. Nothing is
allowed to change right now. In his mind, the vote should be on what is before the
Commission. When the future things come, we deal with them. Maybe, between now and
then, something might change that makes more people happy. Vince said he was trying to
say the same things Brad just voiced. Vince’s vote against would be based on assumption for
the future.
MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00418) the
Comprehensive Plan Map Change from Rural to LDR1-MDR1 for the eleven (11) lots
along Hwy 20 in Pine Brook DIV2, because it allows for future possibilities, without
encumbering anyone at this time, and Staff has indicated that the infrastructure can
19 | P a g e
support the request. Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by McKay
Francis.
McKay said based on the infrastructure to service the additional lots and buffer the
lots from the highway. Brad said we could include the Staff has said the request
makes sense to them and does not impact the city services in any detrimental way.
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion passes. (Summary: Yes = 7, No = 3).
Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith
(Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, McKay
Francis, Vanessa Johnson.
No: Eric Erickson, Bruce Casper, Randall Kempton
9. August 3, 2021, Alan Parkinson presented the application to City Council.
Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment
for 11 parcels at the Pine Brook Subdivision DIV 2 Block 6 Lots 15-25 from Rural to
LDR1-MDR1 #22-00418. Designated as Resolution 2022 - 19 if motion passes – Alan
Parkinson
Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained this recommendation has been
before the City Council on a previous City Council meeting and at that time the motion to
approve the Resolution 2022 – 19 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Rural to
Low Density Residential 1 (LDR 1) – Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR 1) failed. There
has been a change to the request, the addition of two parcels, making it 11 parcels total. The
applicant is requesting the following change to the Comprehensive Plan Map for this
property from Rural to LRD 1 – MDR 1 so then they can request the application for a
rezone.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said the LDR 1 requires a different
sidewalk and setbacks than Rural Residential. The applicant has agreed to keep the setbacks
and sidewalk consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.
Council Member Johnson said she listened to the recorded Planning and Zoning meeting
and had a difficult time understanding the reason why the P&Z commissioners kept stating
that changing the Comprehensive Plan was not going to make a difference with the lot sizes.
She said she felt that was disingenuous to the citizens in the room because they would need
to redo a final plat; however, as stated in a previous meeting the Comprehensive Plan Map is
a guiding document that developers use. There would be no reason to change the
Comprehensive Plan Map if the developer was not going to ask for those lots to be
subdivided. She believes it was confusing for the residents to understand why a change was
being requested if it did not change anything.
20 | P a g e
Council Member Johnson said the city should have Rural Residential zones. A couple of
weeks ago a developer was stating how they are doing such a service to the city by not
choosing the highest range in the Comprehensive Plan. She said, if changing the zone to
LDR 1 and MDR 1, it sets a precedence informing the developer that the city is ok with
having MDR 1 in this area and that is not a good fit at this time.
Council Member Walker said the developer’s original request was to build twin homes.
The neighborhood residents did not approve of having twin homes in their neighborhood.
The developer is now requesting to build single-family homes on a smaller lot size. He said
he is in favor of this request.
Council Member Flora explained the reason she was not in favor of the original request
was that the developer had sold a vision of how the neighborhood was going to be
developed as single-family homes. She said she understood twin homes are considered single
family residential; however, when the LDR 2 zone was requested that would change the
original vision of the neighborhood because it would allow the rental of the twin homes. The
LDR 1 zone keeps the original vision. The change to the Comprehensive Plan would allow
the building of eight additional homes.
Council Member Erickson said his concern is that there is very little RR 1 zone in the city
and there is a market for one acre lots; however, these lots have not been on the market.
They have been sold as a group and never individually for the last three years. He believes
the changing of the Comprehensive Plan is done too quickly. When citizens purchase a lot in
a subdivision that is zoned in a certain way and then suddenly there is a change to that zone,
it is a disservice to them. In addition, the number of homes that can be build increases with
the change. He is not in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Map change. Planning and Zoning
Administrator Parkinson said something to consider is that these lots have been on the
market as single lots since 2009. The Comprehensive Plan does not change lot size and the
plat changes cannot be made until the rezone request is approved by City Council.
Council Member Johnson asked for the reason why the P&Z Commissioners continued to
state the Comprehensive Plan would not cause a change. P&C Administrator Parkinson
explained the Comprehensive Plan Map does not set lot sizes, plat size changes or anything
else until a request to rezone a property completes the public hearing process and is
considered by City Council. Council Member Johnson said there was a lot of confusion in
the P&Z Commissioners meeting and hopes that does not happen again. Most, residents do
not know what the final plat will be and once a property is rezoned, there generally is not a
good reason not to approve the final plat.
Council Member Flora said since the time she has served on the Planning and Zoning
Commission for two years and her sixth year on City Council not a single request for LDR1
has come forward until now. The LDR1 is the lowest density besides Rural Residential this is
the reason why the LDR1 is a good fit for this property. They are going to build the same
21 | P a g e
type of product that has already exists only on a smaller lot size. The setbacks are the same
and they are building a few extra homes.
Council Member Johnson said in the subdivision there are 20 to 30 lots available for
development after the development of these 11 lots so there is a potential for those other
lots to request a rezone. P&Z Administrator Parkinson replied there are extenuating
circumstances involving the strip of the 11 lots; however, there are not extenuating
circumstances for the 20 to 30 internal lots. Council Member Flora said this developer has
met with the neighborhoods HOA board members. There are certain building requirements
that need to be met and the developer is working with the HOA members to make sure
those requirements are met. Council Member Erickson said he is also concerned the other
20 to 30 lots desiring to change to LDR1.
Attorney Rammell said to address Council Member Johnson’s valid concerns with the
confusion in the Planning and Zoning meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners
discussed some deep hypotheticals regarding this request. The developer’s desire to change
the zone of the 20 to 30 lots is a hypothetical and should not being addressed because that
request does not exist at this time.
Council Member Walker moved to table Resolution 2022 – 19 a Comprehensive Plan Map
amendment for 11 parcels at the Pine Brook Subdivision DIV 2 Block 6 Lots 15-25 from
Rural to LDR1-MDR1; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Council Member Flora
asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Erickson
Council Member Walker
The motion carried.
10. August 17, 2022, City Council removed the agenda item from the table and denied the
application.
Resolution 2022 – 19 Comprehensive Plan Map amendment for 11 parcels at the Pine
Brook Subdivision DIV 2 Block 6 Lots 15-25 from Rural to LDR1-MDR1 #22-00418 -
Alan Parkinson. Un-table and Approval Decision of Resolution 2022 – 19
Council Member Walker moved to remove from the table Resolution 2022 – 19
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment for 11 parcels at the Pine Brook Subdivision DIV 2
Block 6 Lots 15-25 from Rural to LDR1-MDR1 and Ordinance No 1284 Fiscal Year 2023
Appropriation Budget; Council Member Chambers seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill
asked for a vote:
22 | P a g e
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora none
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Erickson
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried
Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said the request to change the
Comprehensive Plan Map from Rural to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) – Medium
Density Residential 1 (MDR1). There is the potential for the applicant to request a rezone
after the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment is approved. In the original applicant the
applicant was requesting LDR2; however, they changed their request to LDR1 which is
strictly residential.
Council Member Flora asked what does the resident do if the developer is not following
through with the development agreement regarding adding a park in the subdivision.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said for this property the development of the
park was taken over by the HOA. City Attorney Zollinger explained there is only one item
in the development agreement that is unresolved and that is a small section of the curb on
North West corner of 12th West needing to be finished. The city was not involved in any of
the agreements made by the developer to the purchaser. The park was to be a private park
and it not be turned over to the city.
Discussion regarding the berm on 12th West: The developer was required to put in the buffer
or berm along 12th West, and there are still two lots on the North end of the sub-division
that don’t have any buffer or berm. As it relates to the berm along the highway, it was
offered by the developer in the initial proposal, however, the initial request was denied and
due to the reduced number of units that were allowed under the zoning that was granted, the
berm along the highway was not made a requirement of the sub-division.
City Attorney Zollinger said on the issue of Castle Pines asphalt not being completed,
when the sub-division was constructed, the developer was given the option of creating a
temporary turn around at the North end of Castle Pines. The asphalt portion was to be
completed prior to houses being built that interfered with the temporary gravel turnaround.
At this time, in order for the home at the north end of Castle Pines to be occupied, the
developer will need to provide an asphalt surface that goes to the property line as shown on
the plat.
23 | P a g e
Council Member Johnson said it is difficult for her to see such a high range zone as the
MDR1 in this area as related to the Comprehensive Plan Map. The LDR1-MDR1 zones are
not a good fit for this area. She would prefer this area remain Rural. There may be some
developers that request MDR1 because the Comprehensive Plan indicates it is a good fit for
the area. Mayor Merrill asked the following clarifying question, by amending the
Comprehensive Plan to the LDR1-MDR1 doesn’t change the current zone of the property.
The next step would be for the developer to request a rezone of the property and in this case
the request is to rezone to LDR1 zone. Council Member Johnson explained in the proposed
rezone request yes that is the case; however, a developer could request a rezone of the
MDR1 zone in an adjacent property, stating the Comprehensive Plan indicates that zone
would be a good fit in the area. There are other lots in this subdivision that have not been
developed so a developer could make that type of request making it difficult to not approve
a future rezone request due to the Comprehensive Plan Map. She said it is the precedence it
could set for the future rezone requests.
Council Member Walker said it is important to consider what is being proposed tonight
and not focus on what may or may not be requested in the future. All rezone request require
a public hearing and a decision by the Councilmembers. Council Member Johnson replied to
her it makes the decision more difficult if the Comprehensive Plan Map indicates that
particular zone fits the area. She said as Councilmember it is their job to plan for the future.
Council Member Erickson said the reasons for this Comprehensive Plan amendment
request have changed several times first it was requested because the lots could not be sold
due to their proximity to the freeway. He spoke to two different realtors and asked them
when lots were available for sale individually. The realtors indicated the lots have not been
up for sale individually for the last three years. The second change seems to have been
requested at the eleventh hour, which is not fair to the existing property owners to have the
surrounding properties zone change. He believes if the lots would sale if they were sold
individually.
Council Member Flora said agreed with Council Member Erickson’s reasons when the
request was for the LDR2 zone because the developer has sold a vision to the individual
buyers as Rural. She believes the rezone request of the LDR1 zone is a good compromise.
The LDR1 Zone allows for the same type of home to be built on a smaller lot and still
within the same vision. Council Member Erickson said the city has very little of the Rural
Residential 1 (RR1) zone there are citizens requesting RR1.
Council Member Walker moved to approve Resolution 2022 – 19 Comprehensive Plan
Map amendment for 11 parcels at the Pine Brook Subdivision DIV 2 Block 6 Lots 15-25
from Rural to LDR1-MDR1; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill
asked for a vote:
24 | P a g e
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers Council Member Erickson
Council Member Walker Council President Busby
Mayor Merrill said the decision is left to him to break the tie. This is a difficult decision for
him. He asked City Attorney Zollinger if he should recuse himself from making a decision
because he is building a home in the subdivision this Comprehensive Plan amendment will
affect. He was informed he does not have to recuse himself because amendment will not
affect him individually or will profit from the amendment. He agrees with Council Member
Flora’s remarks regarding the vison the neighborhood residents were sold when they
purchased property in this subdivision. He is voting nay to Resolution 2022-19. When a
subdivision is established it would disingenuous to change the zone.
The motion failed