HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 22-00420 - The Preserve (south of Star View Drive) - Rezone from LDR1 to LDR2
1 | P a g e
#22 00420
Rezone from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to
Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2)
The Preserve (south of Star View Drive)
1. June 13, 2022, An application was received for a Rezone from Low-Density Residential 1
(LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) from Jake Young.
2. June 14, 2022, Fees were paid.
3. June 23, 2022, Staff Reviews were completed with conditions.
4. June 27, the Staff Report was completed. Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published
on July 5th and July 12th, 2022.
5. July 6, 2022, Notice was mailed to all property owners within 350’.
6. July 14, 2022 Notice was posted on the property.
7. July 19, 2022, Written response was received from Jessica and Tyler Dustin.
8. July 21, 2022, Alan Parkinson presented the application to the Planning & Zoning
Commission. A neighbor submitted a written response from Craig Broadbent.
(22-00420) – RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low-
Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2
(LDR2). This parcel was included in the impact Area of the City
of Rexburg in 2002. In 2003, the property was annexed into the
city as part of Area 4 and zoned as Low-Density Residential (03-
00098). The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this parcel as
LDR1-MDR1. The parcel for this request is 31.51 acres. – Brad
Brown, Jake Young (action)
(Video 3:28:56)
Applicant Presentation: Jake Young – 239 Iron Side,
UT - This request is compatible with the Rexburg
Comprehensive Plan Map. This area is compatible with
the LDR1 and LDR2 zones, as well as the MDR. At the
development team, they looked at the Comprehensive
Plan and visiting with Staff about where to plan
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
neighborhoods for growth. This request is also compatible with adjacent zoning.
LDR2 is adjacent to the north and to the south. The LDR2 zone is fantastic for
today’s market. He appreciates all of the comments that have been made for
attainable or affordable housing. Attainable housing is looking at young
professionals, college grads, newly marrieds, and others who want to get into the
market and buy real estate. The LDR2 zone is aimed at filling this need. It is also a
good zone for missing middle housing. Missing middle housing is not about income
but about size; this is not stacked units or apartments. Missing middle housing is a
problem throughout the intermountain west. A starter home is now a small lot
home, twin home, or townhome where families are looking for middle housing. You
can do smaller lots and the units can be attached, allowing for flexibility of
development. The property has an easement on the north for connection to Star
View Drive. Jake is also working with the landowner to the south to connect to
existing roadways. The city’s Transportation Master Plan shows the East Parkway
Corridor for connectivity. He sees six (6) or more street connectivity options for this
property to the south and east over time. Utilities are directly adjacent to the
property. The water connection in this area would actually improve. Connection
could be looped for water at the top of the hill to water at the bottom of the hill.
Water always works best in a connected network. Sewer flows downhill and this
property would be connecting sewer lines uphill and downhill also. Storm water is
always a concern with hill properties. Detention basins and low-impact development
can be created to mitigate and retain water on-site before the water affects the
neighborhood downhill; he realizes this is a concern of residents. He has met with
City Staff multiple times on utilities and transportation. Through due diligence, you
will notice on the Staff Report that Staff does recommend approval of the request.
The request does fit with the pattern of growth. Multiple voices have been in favor
of attainable housing and the need to allow Rexburg’s growth to happen. There are a
lot of good opportunities in Rexburg. Jake grew up in a college town; he knows what
it means to compete for college housing and the raising of rents. This type of zoning
of LDR2 would allow people to borrow and get out of the renting game.
Commissioner Questions: Aaron said the typography is unique. He confirmed the
north end of the property is the low end. He asked Jake if has thought about using
the detention basins as a buffer to the adjacent properties. Jake said absolutely. The
buffer with the adjacent neighborhood is also a good idea. No specific plans have
been developed. Staff has requested he not come with specific plans to allow
tonight’s decision be about the land use. Aaron referred to the escarpments and
undevelopable slopes - will these go into common areas? Jake answered this is not a
decision that has been made, yet. There are opportunities to work with the existing
landowners. He tends to use these areas as pocket parks.
Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – When Staff was reviewing the request, storm water
has been an issue. In 2014, a stormwater event created some challenges in many
areas of the city. Engineering will be required to contain run-off and retain
stormwater on site. Arrangement are being made to bring water from the top of the
hill, down, and alleviate some of the low-pressure problems in the existing Hidden
Valley area. Two accesses will be required in the beginning stages of this
development, connecting to the north and the south. In the future, the city would
3 | P a g e
like to see connection to E 2nd S. Right-of-ways will be collected during
development. At any point there will be four or five different routes for residents to
connect to the traffic network. The lift station has been replaced in this area with a
larger lift station to service any additional future growth in this area. The change to
the lift station was also to mediate some of the problems the area faced in 2014.
Staff recommends the request to the Commissioners to recommend to City Council.
Commissioner Questions: Aaron confirmed the road along the church on S
Hidden Valley Rd will be extended to the property line. Water and sewer will also be
connected at this point. Alan said the applicant will have to work with the property
owner to the south to connect to the road, sewer, and water by the church. Until an
agreement is made with the landowner to the south, the parcel will not be able to be
developed. Eric asked what is meant by containment of the surface water. Alan said
there is no storm drain in this area. The developer will have to show how he will
address the 100-year flood levels and maintain the water on site. Randall are the
concerns about storm water and water pressure requirements any different for the
LDR2 zone than they are for the LDR1 zone? Alan said the infrastructure
requirements are the same for both zones. Randall asked if the land is platted. Alan
said no. A plat would be the next step if the zoning is approved. McKay asked for
clarification: over the last couple of months, a parcel east of tonight’s request was
tabled twice and then and then withdrawn by that applicant. Chairperson Smith
confirmed that Hidden Valley is zoned Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). Jim
asked about the difference between the LDR1 and LDR2 zones. Alan answered in
LDR1, the lots would have a minimum size of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet.
The uses would be single-family detached homes. LDR2 has a minimum lot size of
eight thousand (8,000) square feet for a single-family detached home or for duplexes
or twin homes the minimum lot size is ten thousand (10,000) square feet. No
townhomes or multi-family apartments are allowed. Hidden Valley as a whole does
not meet all the standards of LDR1. Chairperson Smith asked about the zoning in
the whole of Hidden Valley. Alan said most of the lots are zoned Low-Density
Residential 2 (LDR2), except some lots to the west in phases 5 and 6. Vince
confirmed, even though the zoning designation is LDR2, the majority of the lots are
built to the LDR1 standard. Alan said several of the lots in Hidden Valley are built
to the LDR2 standard.
Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 10:22PM.
(Video 3:46:13)
Favor:
Brad Brown – 719 W 4350 S – UT – Brad did not know if he should speak now or
with Jake in the beginning at the applicant presentation. Jake knows a lot about
master planning. He has gone to school for planning and worked as a planner for
Salt Lake County. He is an independent consultant for many clients. Brad knows this
is a special project and he knows he needed someone to make sure the development
is done right. Looking at the property and its geographic constraints, elevation
differences, the utilities, and roads, there is a lot of financial and planning
considerations. Brad’s team felt very limited with the single-family lots and the LDR1
zone. The hill on the west side was a topic of mitigation, as well as offsite
infrastructure costs. Brad feels Jake has a good handle on what would be best for the
4 | P a g e
community. He has worked well with Staff and has listened to their comments.
Brad’s team is excited and feels this is a positive change for all sides.
Neutral:
Tracy Wynn – 290 Rodney Dr – She is representing the neighborhood. They have
been sewered out twice, along with a neighbor, in 2008 and 2014, with over $60,000
in damage. She knows growth is going to happen but does not agree with multi-
family housing in the area per lot. Single-family housing is suitable for this area.
There are other places in Rexburg that would be more suitable for multi-family
housing per lot. Tracy wants the Commission to look out for the people. Please
make the developer have adequate drainage; do what it takes to support your tax
payers with adequate infrastructure and drainage. We can grow all we want, but if we
do not have a good foundation, all we are doing is making more money. Tracy is
pro-growth. Please protect the people and watch over them.
Steve Oakey – 175 S Mill Hollow – In deciding whether to be for or against any
land issue and specifically in the one before the Commission, he wants to consider
the strongest, reasonable arguments. He supports a single and fundamental right of a
landowner to use their property as they see fit. The following are reasons Steve has
chosen to remain neutral:
1. Over the years, he has heard it said in many public hearings, some folks do not
like outsiders come to our town to make a buck. The outsiders do not care about
our community. He has to remind himself that there is a shortage of housing
across the country and in Rexburg, as has been stated tonight multiple times.
When demand is high, someone has to supply to meet that demand. The best
way to incentivize free-market producers in a free-market economy requires
there is a profit on investment. He would like to thank developers, whether they
live in our community or not, for investing in our county. Steve thanked those
who had presented their projects today.
2. Perhaps his objection would be the added traffic, overcrowding of schools and
emergency and utility services. I remind myself that the city has competent
engineering staff, legal counsel, and administration that will ensure safe and
efficient construction in the maintenance of roads, sidewalks, and utilities. We
have a responsible school district, police, and fire department that hire new
personnel as needed. Knowing this, he could not object for this reason.
3. Perhaps I should demand the City of Rexburg protect the value of his property.
What if his neighbor’s value is different than his? And if I demand the city open a
Pandora’s box of competing values, the city would have to legally define and then
coercively enforce those values. Is it monetary value or aesthetic value or lifestyle
value? Or predominant majority value? A room where a small group of local
citizens are granted the right to dictate value over a lesser unseen minority. Steve
does not feel it right for any government to define or coercively enforce value.
Citizens should be able to create many values. Rather, government should
guarantee freedom for individual citizens to create many values.
5 | P a g e
4. Perhaps as a citizen of the United States, I have a skewed view that the majority
should be able to shape the community. And the shape of the community is best
defined by the government, rather than many individuals, competitive choices. He
read a book, The Color of Law, written by Richard Rothstein, who argues that the
history of zoning throughout the United States has been used by multiple
governments to segregate and exclude certain disagreeable and deplorable classes
of people. In fact, he has heard it stated in this very room, at this very mic, when a
person says they do not oppose housing, but only a certain type of housing. Many
varieties of people over the course of time, through many interactions shape a
community. Because people like to use exaggeration and hyperbole, they have
asked Steve, would you allow a pig farm in downtown Rexburg? Steve thought it
would be impossible to find such a pig farmer, or any other kind of farmer, or any
other successful business person, who would so misallocate the valuable
investment of raising hogs, on such expensive, hard to access land. For this
reason, he could not oppose.
5. Perhaps Steve should be for the negative because the development would be
detrimental to his lifestyle. He reminds himself in the early 1970s, Jack Randall
Development developed the Indian Hills Estates, his parents purchased a lot on a
patchy avenue, where their young family moved from a more modest home on
Center Street, sold to his parents by Ross Reese. Steve is certain both Jack and
Ross made money on the transactions. He is grateful the already established
neighbors did not put up too much of a fuss over his parents building a home
there, even though it would have impacted their lifestyle. Subsequent housing
development greatly impeded Steve’s young lifestyle. He could not walk across a
previously open field and down into Mill Hollow Canyon, where he spent many
year-round hours and days. Because of the slow housing development, Steve’s
mother often lamented the diminishing views and lessening of meadowlark
morning songs, of which they were a part. Isn’t it ironic that he now owns one of
the homes that impacted his young lifestyle. Steve remembers years ago the Teton
Flood Dam and the Mill Hollow Trailer Park was built in the middle of a hollow
across the street from Palmer’s farmhouse. When Dale passed away and the farm
went into the hands of his son, Gene, and his son-in-law developed the land into
the Hidden Valley Estates. The diverse income levels of diverse home values like
the mobile home park have not interfered with the quiet and peace of the Hidden
Valley owners.
6. Perhaps he should object because there are plenty of other places to develop in
the county. Because Steve has paid attention to the housing developments, in the
county, he can assure the Commission, as has evidenced tonight, in every case he
has observed, there has been varying levels of opposition in all of these
developments. Sometimes, nasty opposition. The acrimony generated by one of
our Madison County housing developments led to a recently decided Idaho
Supreme Court case. He read a letter submitted during a hearing which said, “I
oppose any housing development across from me. I do not need all those people living
across from me. I do not need the noise, the speeding up and down the road, and most of
all the raise in property taxes, because it is there.”
6 | P a g e
There may be some strong reason or justification for Steve to oppose this land
action he has not yet considered. But, he likes to think he is capable of persuasion,
he would be happy to listen to the negative voices but for the reasons stated, he
remains neutral.
Leah Heise - 15 S Hidden Valley – She showed the location of a path that many
residents use. Leah asked the developer to include the path in his plans.
Kristine Bennion – 295 Shoshone Ave – She is torn because of the housing and
how it is affecting the students. Kristine is worried about the destruction from the
water to prepare for the 100-year flood. She is sure this was done for the people who
live south of Mill Hollow in the valley. It did not help and people still lost thousands
and thousands of dollars of property.
Also, she is concerned about the access. One of the things she is opposed to is going
through the Benfields’ house. Anyone who drives Mill Hollow in the winter knows
the street can be dangerous. The idea of bringing the road through 2nd S is ridiculous;
she does not know why anyone would do that. There is no stopping in the winter;
accident after accident would happen at the bottom of the hill if you hook on to the
road at 2nd S.
She is pro-growth; she feels it is important for Rexburg to have growth, especially in
that valley. No one wants their view of the Tetons taken. She wishes she had more
assurances. Abri Apartments is an example of spot zoning; the development has
changed the integrity of that area.
Kristine clarified from the developer that townhomes are not allowed in LDR2.
Prices are market driven.
Opposed:
Jim Papworth – 165 S Hidden Valley Rd – Jim thanked the Commission for the
time you put into this volunteer position. He and Anne are the last house on the east
side of the road in Hidden Valley. The first three (3) years the two lived there, there
was a huge plat posted showing lots, just like theirs, going all the way up the hill side
south of them; this is one of the major reasons the two chose to build their home at
this location. He counted four (4) of the ninety-eight (98) homes are on smaller lots
than what he anticipated when he and his wife built their home. His hope is the
Commissioners will consider why people move into an area and one of those reasons
is what they anticipate will develop around them. Jim would like to see the area
remain the same and the Commission deny the request.
Donna Benfield – 201 S Mill Hollow Rd – We are all here for the same reason; we
all love Rexburg. She believes Rexburg is the safest place in the whole world. She
and her husband have been lots of places and she and her husband choose Rexburg.
They have lived in Rexburg for fifty years.
• How many of you live in Rexburg? She knows everyone does.
7 | P a g e
• How many of you own your own home?
• How many of you made one of the biggest decisions of your life to build your
own homes? For her and her husband it was one of the biggest decisions of their
lives. The two have lived in their home since 1979. People have invested their life
savings in their home.
She loves growth. Her life’s job was to promote businesses to come to Rexburg.
Donna wants the growth to be planned correctly. She thought everyone in Hidden
Valley was LDR1; she stands corrected. Donna wants planners to learn and listen to
why people live where they live. Single-family homes are very appropriate in this
area. She loves having neighbors with different opinions.
Donna does not like to see people come into a community, make changes to that
community, and then go back to where they live.
The developer said he has six (6) different options for roadways. Why does everyone
come up to us and say what are you going to do when the road goes through their
living room? No one has come to the Bennions and told them there is going to be a
road through their living room, but it is on the internet. A map shows a road going
straight through her house. Donna was just told if they do not like what is offered, it
could be considered eminent domain. She has dedicated her life to Rexburg, but
tonight she has a sick feeling in her gut. Is there an answer for me? Is there a road
going through her home? If that scenario did happen, this eighty (80) year old
woman would not leave her home. Brad said Donna deserves an answer. From his
service and during Donna’s service, to his knowledge, the City Council has not
pursued eminent domain. The Commissioners can only do land use only. Brad asked
Alan if he has any knowledge of this. Alan said the city looks at development in this
area and the connectivity is projected. The City will negotiate purchase. Donna has
had several people desire her home and yard.
Aaron asked if there are funds for the extension of E 2nd S. Alan answered, “no”.
Chad Richards – 720 Centennial Loop – He is against the applicant’s request for a
couple of reasons. Seventeen years ago, he bought his lot and built his home. They
bought due to its moderate lot size, the modest location, and intended this to be
their final home. He would argue the entire hill on the map near the hospital that
have the LDR1 zone but are smaller lots.
There is another section of land, which is ninety-five (95) acres to the east which
came up and was withdrawn; their request was for LDR2. Accepting tonight’s
request would influence the zoning of the other ninety-five (95) acres. One hundred
twenty-five acres at an LDR2 zone allows five thousand (5,000) square feet per lot.
Chad’s lot is 15,000 square feet; this means the density would be going from one
door to three doors per acre on the entire hill. This density does not match anything
else that has been done on the entire hill. Chad has to evaluate from a worst-case
scenario. A Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) could be completed and make the
density even worse.
8 | P a g e
If we can put a man on the moon, we can figure out the storm drain problem. He
would question the six (6) accesses. Low-impact housing is what is already present.
The neighborhood looks forward to the growth there. Chad does not care what type
of house goes in. It is just the density they want with the open feel he is seeking. The
desire is to maintain the same development on up the hill.
Vaughn Price – 315 S Mill Hollow Rd – He works in the insurance business and
was involved in the litigation of the damage in Hidden Valley. There was hundreds
of thousands of dollars of litigation, as well as exposure. Considerable engineering
will be needed to reduce that risk. Before a zone change is completed, he believes the
residents deserve to see a plat for this area. He is interested in seeing the mitigation
plans.
Steven Hart – 285 S Mill Hollow Rd – He has some of the same concerns as
Vaughn. The back of his house is a cliff. He does not want the hillside dug into from
a safety standpoint. He did not like the comment of identifying LDR2 zoned
properties in the Hidden Valley subdivision; he feels this is feeble attempt to add
power to what they are asking for. The whole area should be a single-family
development. Steve does not mind looking down on rooftops, but he does mind
when his neighbors have increased traffic, etc.
Chad Price – 269 S Mill Hollow Rd – He sat back and looked at the seal. The seal is
going to have to be changed. The Commissioners get faced with people packing into
the city. We are losing the agricultural focus. Let us maintain some openness with the
tightly packed density. He knows developers need to make a buck in development.
Let us zone the land like the rest of the neighborhood as LDR1.
Eric Barzee – 107 Star View Dr – He asked people in the audience to stand if they
have the same concern Eric does. Is anyone concerned that N Hill Rd is already very
narrow with no plans for expansion? Is anyone concerned about sewage flowing
down the hill due to inadequate structure? Is anyone concerned about retention of
storm drains? Is anyone concerned about Benfield’s house being torn down for the
road down the steep hill? (Many people in the audience stood for each question.)
The people all have similar concerns about how each issue will be dealt with. Right
now, there is one entrance into Hidden Valley. (For all Hidden Valley phases, there
are two entrances into the subdivisions.)
Sky Sessions -118 S Hidden Valley – Sky was born and raised in Rexburg. He
served in the Army active duty. There is nowhere else he would rather live; he loves
it here. Developers provide the growth; we need to create a pathway for them.
Markets are cyclical; things will change. The market cannot be predicted one hundred
(100%) percent. Middle of the ground housing belongs in Summerfield, not here.
Jessica Dustin – 636 Centennial Loop – She wrote a letter. The request is not
congruent with what is already developed.
Michael Larsen – 104 Star View Dr – He can summarize his opposition to two
issues when considering development: 1) Are there other options or areas that are
9 | P a g e
already zoned LDR2? Why must this parcel be changed? 2) When making a decision
such as this, do we honor the desires and expectations of the established residents or
those that do no live in the area?
Marianne Sessions – 118 S Hidden Valley Rd – She represents Craig Broadbent,
who is a Doctor of Economics, from whom she will submit a written response after
her testimony. The gist is the affects of development on the storm drain system.
For herself, she is against a higher density in this area. Adams Elementary and
Lincoln Elementary are already overloaded. Tripling the density in this area will
greatly impact those schools. She loves this community and this area. Graduates
should not expect to be able to afford a home just after graduating from college. The
housing crisis is nationwide. We want to create opportunities for people. Why would
we allow a change in zoning in this area when there are other areas feasible for this?
Scott Gardner – 92 Star View Dr – There are to main concerns that stand out to
him. The two adjacent parcels that are zoned LDR2 are actually not adjacent, they
just touch the parcel. There are two potential road connections for access – Star
View Drive and to the south. The zone change would add sixty (60) additional
homes. Insufficient snow plowing narrows the road. Is this the right time to change
the zoning for this parcel? Do we wait for the connections to develop first?
Richard Cluff – 631 Vale Ln – He agrees with what has been said. This parcel is in
his backyard. One concern is the unknowns. This does not give him any faith or
hope the residents are going to be taken care of.
Craig Johnson – 641 Vale Ln – He and his neighbors are doing what they are
privileged to do as Americans; he is grateful to express his feelings and concerns to
his representatives. What will happen if the detention ponds fail? And if the water
does come down the hill, then what? His understanding is once water leaves your
property it is not your problem. He is also concerned with other issues, but they have
been said.
Peter Williams – 696 Centennial Loop – He agrees strongly with what has been
said. He likes the comment on the timing for the roads. Let us fix the roads first. The
road problem is a big one.
Jim Brannon – 321 S Mill Hollow – He will leave pretty happy tonight. The lady
who moved from New York to Chicago to Rexburg and is pro-growth, by the time
all this happen, her grandkids will not want to come here. He has lived in Rexburg
for thirty-seven (37) years. Jim believes he has lived in Rexburg during its best years.
He foresees passing away before the consequences of growth take place.
Russ Norton – 691 Dell Dr – He agrees with the comments expressed. Russ lives at
the bottom of Mill Hollow. He is concerned about egress. He worries about the
water – whoever designed the solutions previously, failed. Russ has a difficult time
having confidence that a solution will be found.
10 | P a g e
Victor Harrison – 782 Nina Dr – Victor identified his home on the map. He
opposes this request due to the stormwater issue. Sewer runs downhill to Tracy
Wynn’s basement. The city has said they have put in a new lift station. The new lift
station is designed to help with the Barney Dairy property on the back of the
baseball fields. There is a problem lift station by the Junior High that has failed twice.
Until there is a guarantee, that this will not happen again, he opposes this.
He also opposes the request due to the storm water issue. In Rexburg, the ground
freezes and when you run water over it, the water does not stay in a catch pond and
runs over the banks. He has lived in Rexburg for thirty-five (35) years and he has
lived in his home for twenty (20) years. He has had water run across the road to the
east of his home. The ditch above him flooded because it was not properly
maintained or adequate for the run-off. Why will a storm system not be put in this
area? Someone opened a manhole, which allowed the storm water into the sewer
system, causing the sewer to flood into the residents’ basements. He opposes any
development that does not solve these problems first.
Nate Allen – 65 S Hidden Valley – He echoes the concern of the domino affect of
approval. Nate showed his home. Increasing density through here will increase the
danger of traffic not slowing down past his home. Someone planned this area for
LDR1, they had a reason for the LDR1 zone, and he does not see a reason for this
to change.
Travis Greene – 112 Star View Drive – He is opposed. Travis would like to see
single-family homes on this parcel. Gene Palmer, when developing this area, zoned
the land LDR2, giving him developer options, but he chose single-family homes.
When it comes to affordable housing; this will not be affordable housing. This is not
the developer’s fault due to the building and land acquisition costs, a road is needed,
and the land will need to be blasted for lava. The hillside cannot be built on. The
expense to put the development together will make the prices of the homes
unaffordable. There are other places for development without all these barriers.
David Heise – 15 S Hidden Valley – He asks the body to reject this proposal and
ask the developer to come back with more concrete plans.
Vince said the Commissioners consider land use and the Commissioners do not
want a project to influence their vote. As much as the residents want to see the
project, the Commissioners do not. If the zone is going to work for Developer A, it
is going to work for Developer B. He wanted to address this concept before the
developer speaks, so he is not influenced to answer the people with details about the
project.
11 | P a g e
Written Correspondence:
#1 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Jessica and Tyler Dustin – 636 Centennial Loop
12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
#2 WRITTEN RESPONSE: Craig Broadbent – 123 S Hidden Valley Rd
14 | P a g e
Rebuttal: Jake Young - He has listened to the citizens. Some of the concerns are
new, others have come from the City Staff, and others have come from looking at
the property and thinking about it. Jake thanked the residents for coming to the
meeting. It is important to care about where you live. He is on a H.O.A. board in his
neighborhood. Jake has met with D.O.T. on a highway going through his
neighborhood. He has also has the experience of sewage flooding his basement. A
lot of these concerns would be addressed at the platting level, which would come
before the Commission as the project moves forward. Street connections, a trail, the
15 | P a g e
opportunity to cluster the homes, and stay away from the hillside would all be shown
on that plat. In talking with City Staff, Keith is aware of all of these issues.
Development is a long-term process to determine solutions to the problems. The
connectivity to the south and the east are the most important to get onto the traffic
system and move through the area. He has not proposed putting a road through
Donna’s house. Jake is a big believer in property rights.
Brad Brown – A lot of the problems brought forth tonight are engineering
problems. Others were all about change. He recognizes the opinions in the room and
he hopes that the neighbors will work with him to create a great place that addresses
property rights for all.
Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the
public input portion of the hearing.
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: Aaron confirmed the 100 yr. flood, sheet flow from
agricultural land coming down the canyon and funneling into the community. Vince
added, when the development, the city did their best efforts from what they
understood could happen. This event blew those expectations out of the water. The
college was also flooded out. Many places were also affected like Hidden Valley.
Aaron agrees with the property owners. All the property around the parcel is LDR1.
There is one thing that tips the scales in the other direction - Hidden Valley is like
looking down the barrel of the gun. He would be so grateful a developer wants to
come in and fix these problems. Once you take of the escarpments and the massive
retention center, sixteen (16-18) to eighteen acres will be usable. LDR2 will be
needed to pay for the infrastructure.
Brad says this area is precarious. The Commission is supposed to look at the
property to determine if this is the place for this type of zone. Next week, the
property can be sold and the plan for the property may change. Looking at the
worst-case scenario proposed on the zoning. The greater density of three homes per
acre is not a good fit. He does not believe the possibility of a P.U.D. should be put
on this piece of property. Brad cannot guarantee that retention ponds will solve all
the issues. Everyone wants everything that is ugly to be built in someone else’s
backyard. Based on what is around this property and what could happen with the
new zoning is the right answer for this property. He is against the request.
Jim said he has the best neighbors; this is his neighborhood. It is late and people are
tired, which can be a recipe for disaster. He appreciates the cordiality of the situation
tonight. It is difficult to be a Commissioner and look at a request from all sides. Jim
is a Civil Engineer. A lot of the engineering things will be addressed and he will be
16 | P a g e
watching for them. This is a unique area; the valley is closed in on all sides. The place
lends itself to the same zoning that is already there. He wishes the land would
develop right at the current zoning, sooner rather than later, so some of the issues
can be resolved. Chairperson Smith said this land was owned by her family at one
time. She spent her whole life there. When it was rezoned by the city, it all came in as
LDR1. Their vision was for LDR1 through this area. Her husband farmed some of
the land and the soil is not very deep in places. If everyone could work together, they
could really make a beautiful development. Hopefully, the East Parkway Corridor
will also happen. She believes LDR1 is the proper zoning for this property.
McKay is paying devil’s advocate. A developer could come into the Hidden Valley
neighborhood, does a P.U.D. and puts a twelve-story building in the middle of the
neighborhood – this is probably an exaggeration. Just because your home was built
to a different standard, does not mean the LDR2 zoned parcels cannot go ahead and
build another unit onto their home; the LDR2 zoning would allow for this. Chad
Richards and he had to build a major retention system for the Cove. The City of
Rexburg made them put in a retention system that could hold all of Hidden Valley’s
water and half of Rexburg’s. The system does not fill to twenty (20%) percent
capacity, even when all of the snow is melting. If I lived at the bottom of the hill, I
would be excited that a developer would be addressing drainage with whatever
density. Vince asked if the property stays LDR1, does this mitigate any water or
sewer problems. It does not. He is wondering, as the land is problematic, he asked
Attorney Rammell, if Keith, the Public Works Director, would answer questions in a
public meeting. Vince is trying to determine an avenue for the citizens’ questions to
be answered if the zoning was approved. Attorney Rammell referred to Alan. Alan
said, typically, a meeting can be set up for Staff to answer questions the public may
have. Vince confirmed Staff’s willingness to meet with the public. Brad said in
response to Vince’s comments the density will not affect the problems with storm
drain, etc. Brad would argue with increased density, there is more building and
pavement, etc. – at some point there is a difference.
Eric says this is a difficult decision, because he knows a lot of the folks in the
audience. He must step back and look at several of the comments about people not
against higher density, as long as you put it somewhere else. People on the other side
of town are saying the same thing. The Commission must determine whether a
proposal fits in a particular area. His thoughts are Rexburg needs more of a twin
home type of development, that seniors and younger families can move into. Done
properly, this is a good fit in an area such as this. He is confident in Staff, that when
a proposal is put before them, they will address the concerns of flooding, water, and
sewer, the roads, and lot lines against the cliffs. If it cannot be done properly, we are
not going to allow it to be done. Eric is still a little bit on the fence. He empathizes
with the homeowners. Jim said if the land was flat, he would agree with the zone
change. It is such an isolated area, but the zone change does not fit. Aaron argues if
the land was flat, LDR2 could be gridded out. The topography limits the number of
units that could go in. Aaron lives in Eaglewood in a LDR1 zone. Across the street
from him are twin homes. Chairperson Smith sold the last twin home in Aaron’s
neighborhood for $740,000. The neighbors should not be afraid of twin homes.
Based on the square footage for that sale, twin homes are a good product with LDR1
17 | P a g e
uses. Vince asked Commissioners to look at the maximum capacity. Alan provided
some of the figures. The parcel is 31.51 acres times 8.7, which would allow two-
hundred seventy-four (274) units before open space and roads. Aaron figures one
hundred forty (140-150) to one hundred fifty units.
MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council deny (22-00420)
RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low-Density
Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), based on the
surrounding area all meeting the LDR1 zone requirements and the concerns
development based on the Commissioners’ conversation. Action: Deny,
Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Jim Lawrence.
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Vince says the topography is what his
reasons are based on. The Commissioners need the peoples’ input on the
Comprehensive Plan.
VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 7, No = 3).
Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron
Richards, Bruce Casper, Vanessa Johnson, Brad Wolfe.
No: Eric Erickson, McKay Francis, Aaron Richards
9. August 17, 2022, Alan Parkinson presented the application to City Council.
Appeal of Rezone Request for Parcel No. RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View
Dr from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2)
Zone#22-00420. Request failed recommendation of approval in the Public Hearing held
during the Planning & Zoning Meeting on July 21, 2022 – Alan Parkinson
Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson reviewed a map of the rezone request. The surrounding
zones are Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to the east, north and west. LDR1 and Low-Density
Residential 2 (LDR2) zones to the south. Harvest Heights DIV1 subdivision is located to the southwest of
this parcel and is zoned Rural Residential 2 (RR2). After, the Staff Review of the request, there are some
requirements the applicant will need to follow such as:
a. Water will have to come from a different zone further up the valley to provide adequate
pressure.
b. Storm drainage will have to be handled through detention ponds.
18 | P a g e
The water will need to come from the south because there is an issue at the top of Hidden valley with low
water pressure. The roadways will start from Hidden Valley and come down from 7th South to provide
access from both ends of the development. The developer will need to work with the property owners on
gaining access for the roadways. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners have recommended denial of
this rezone request; however, the applicant would like to present his appeal of the Planning and Zoning
Commissioner’s denial of his request to City Council.
Jake Young said he represents the Stuart Land Company; Brad Brown is also a representative and is joining
the meeting via zoom. He explained the property is conducive with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, it falls
within the range of the LDR1 to the MDR1 zones and are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The
property is 32 acres and slopes from the south to the north. It has a significant fall; however, it’s beautiful,
with nice views looking east towards the Teton Mountains. The access is favorable from the south with
future development. To the north of the property the area is zoned LDR2 zone, which is what they are
requesting and also to the north the area is zoned MDR1. To the west of the property is LDR1 and to the
South is LDR2. There is a mixture of zones in this area.
Mr. Young said he toured the neighborhood and did not see any negative impacts from MDR1 next to an
LDR2 or the nearby LDR1. He said property rights are based on zoning and not on the existing conditions.
There were two rezones being considered that night at the Planning and Zoning meeting with similar
conditions of going from a lower density to a higher density, both rezones were recommended for approval.
One additional comment after the motion was seconded, there was discussion regarding topography. He
said City Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson at the meeting said all topography, drainage, sewer,
and transportation concerns would be met, according to the City’s Engineering Standards. There were other
concerns mentioned such as, the slope of the hill. In some area of the property, the slope of the hill is
greater than 30% that section would not be developed according to the city engineering standards and
ordinances. He said not developing this section would protect the hillside and the homes above.
19 | P a g e
Council Member Chambers asked if the 30% sloped area of the property was removed from the 32 acres
and the needed land for retainage areas. What percentage of the 32 acres is developable? Mr. Young said
the lower part is about four acres and a small section above is about an acre, making it a total of about five
acres. There isn’t a detailed survey; however, based off of the online measurements and mapping the
number of acres that would come out of the steeper slopes. He said he doesn’t have the size of the storm
water basin yet; it would of course be a considerable size leaving about 25 to 28 acres available to develop.
Mr. Young said in the 2014 flood when it rained one inch of rain in an hour and then 2 inches total with in
a 24-hour period. The neighborhood below this property was flooded. His conversation with city staff is
that storm water improvements have been made, upgrades to the lift station systems were also made. He
said without development the risk of a sever flood is still there; however, a storm water basin at the base of
the property would be built if development occurred that would mitigate the excess in storm water.
Mr. Young said in the city’s long range Transportation Master Plan, there are plans for an arterial roadway
coming around the east side of this property. There is a good option for this property to connect to the
arterial roadway. He said he looked at other streets to connect too such as, Star View Drive. The
connectivity of streets enhances walkable neighborhoods. In the city’s Trails Plan, there are plans to have a
trail through the development. He said he see no reason why this development would not follow the city’s
plan of having a trail through the development.
20 | P a g e
Mr. Young said the question was asked, why is more housing needed? The answer is due to significant
growth. Most, of the development is happening in the City of Rexburg. As part of their planning research,
they looked at demographics, studies and analyze areas. He said Rexburg has a unique demographic and in
terms of education. The average household is about 3.4 people. He reviewed the significant housing needed
for Millennials and upcoming Generation Z in the chart below.
21 | P a g e
Mr. Young reviewed the area median incomes and monthly mortgage/rent for 3-person family.
22 | P a g e
Mr. Young said at most public meetings when discussing housing the question asked by property owners is will
this type of development negatively impact their home value. A study was completed a few years ago by the
Campsea Gardner Policy Institute, the key findings are underlined in the slide below.
23 | P a g e
Brad Brown said if this rezone request is approved, it will be their second project in Rexburg. This project
will be a benefit to the community. The reason they believe this development will benefit the community is
because as mentioned by Mr. Young, the type of housing allowed in the LDR2 zone will meet the needs of
the community.
Council Member Johnson asked for clarification about the connectivity of the roadways and having to
work with property owners to obtain roadway connections. How will this impact the current residents? Mr.
Young said city code requires at least two connections. The two connections would be to Star View Drive
and 700 South. Once the East Parkway Corridor is built, there will be a connection to the east of the
development. He said he understands there will be an increase in traffic that is inevitable with development;
however, they are willing to work with city engineers to mitigate those impacts.
Council Member Chambers asked if a Planned Unit Development (PUD) has been considered by the
applicant, which would allow a higher density. Mr. Young said they have not considered a PUD. If a as
PUD was requested, it would require a legislative decision.
Council Member Flora said one of the main concerns from residents is the possibility of needing to go
through the Benfield’s property. Mr. Young replied going through the Benfield’s property was not proposed
or part of their application. There are no drawings of a roadway going through the Benfield’s property. She
said she understands the Planning and Zoning Commission will be meeting tomorrow to recommend
changes to the LDR2 zone with the possibility of allowing town homes in that zone.
Mayor Merrill clarified City Council is not approving the zone LDR2 tonight. They are voting on the
appeal to remand the rezone request for further consideration. City Attorney Zollinger explained the zone is
not being consider at this time. What is being considered is the appeal of whether the Planning and Zoning
Commission exercised an authority that isn’t really theirs to consider such as topography. The discussion of
the LDR1 structures is also not legally relevant. The reason why an appeal is being considered rather than
overwriting the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation is because of the appropriateness of
the recommendation is in question.
Council Member Erickson said he has concerns with reducing lot sizes throughout the city because it
changes the structure of the city. Mayor Merrill said with more density in appropriate locations, it provides
more efficiency of the city’s infrastructure and costs associated to provide that infrastructure. Council
Member Johnson said she has been asked by city residents to consider leaving Rural Residential Zones and
LDR1 as housing options. Council Member Flora said a combination of the LDR1 and LDR2 Zones are a
good fit for this property; however, with future changes to these zones she does not feel comfortable
changing the zone to LDR2. Council Member Flora said it is not fair to the neighborhood to have been
zoned the zone that it is and then have it changed to something different. Council Member Erikson said the
input received by the citizens in the area have concerns with the growth in their neighborhood.
Council President Busby moved to remand the Appeal of Rezone Request for Parcel No.
RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Drive from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to
Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) Zone to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further
consideration; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora Council Member Johnson
24 | P a g e
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Erickson
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried
10. September 1, 2022, Alan Parkinson presented the application to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for reconsideration.
Reconsideration:
(22-00420) – RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low-
Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). This parcel was
included in the impact Area of the City of Rexburg in 2002. In 2003, the property was
annexed into the city as part of Area 4 and zoned as Low-Density Residential (03-00098).
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this parcel as LDR1-MDR1. The parcel for this
request is 31.51 acres. In the July 21, 2022, meeting the P&Z Commission recommended
City Council deny the request. This application has been sent back from City Council for
reconsideration. – Brad Brown, Jake Young (action)
Vince Haley arrived.
Attorney Rammell was in attendance at the city council meeting on August 17, 2022. The
applicant appealed the recommendation of the Commission. The applicant’s main concerns
on this appeal were based on the property rights attached to this application on current
zoning and not existing conditions. Second, that the denial was based on topography,
drainage, water and sewer concerns when those issues have and will be addressed through
engineering and design with City Staff.
At 2 hours, 27 minutes, City Attorney Stephen Zollinger discussed the appeal that was later
granted by City Council, “On appeal, did Planning & Zoning exercise some authority that is not
there’s: conversation about topography. You have an engineering department that deals with
topography. Talking about structures below that are not legally relevant. The appropriateness of the
recommendation is suspect.” There was further context given to 3. At 2 hours, 25 minutes,
Councilman Colin Erickson asked City Staffmember, Alan Parkinson, “Are most of the houses
zoned to the north LDR2? How big are the lots to the north of the applicant’s request?” City
Attorney Stephen Zollinger interjected and states, “This is not relevant. The applicant is right.
The law gives the benefit of the zone and not the restrictions of the construction.” Attorney Zollinger
instructs Alan to not answer the question. As counsel for this board, he will give the same
instruction to not consider that analysis.
“This is an appeal from the applicant that stems from the discussion and decision that took place
after the public input portion of the meeting that was closed. There was no additional information
provided by City Staff or the applicant tonight. Rather, it was the information already presented at
the meeting that took place on July 21, 2022.” This is a recommendation board that does not
make final determinations on application such as this. This board has been tasked by City
Council to reconsider this application and make another recommendation, not based on the
25 | P a g e
specific items that City Council took issue with. Specifically City Council points to issues
with topography and discussions regarding structures currently zoned LDR2 but are
constructed as to a LDR1 structure size.
Brad asked why isn’t it appropriate to ask about the lot size when considering the number of
structures that can be placed on a certain lot. Attorney Rammell said the issue was with
what is already existing. Aaron said you may discuss proposed units, but not existing
structures. Attorney Rammell continued you are giving the rights to build within the zone,
not specifying a certain type of construction within the zone. He quoted Attorney Zollinger,
“the law gives the benefit of the zone and not the restrictions of the construction”. In the course of
the conversation, they are referring to homes that are built adjacent to this
application. Efforts should be made to give deference to the zoning alone and not the
allowable construction types that are within that zone. Whether someone chooses to
build to a different standard, is not relevant for the board’s consideration tonight.
Eric understands; the concern about typography is what he does not understand. He
understands engineering thinks they can work around topography, but don’t we have to
consider runoff. Attorney Rammell said we are guided by ordinance and statute.
“When considering a rezone, any Development Code or ordinance change,
must be approved by the governing board, and they must find that the
rezone is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and not demonstrate
adverse impacts on local service delivery” (I.C. 67-6511(c)).
The reason Attorney Rammell did not stop the discussion on topography on July 21st, 2022,
was because he gives some deference to this Commission to allow some discussion to
explain “in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan”. When you are constructing a
Comprehensive Plan, what are the types of things that you consider? He gives more
deference that what some typically may.
Because City Council took issue with the discussion, the attorney advises the Commission to
give another recommendation but do not use these reasons. We can sit and argue all night
about certain aspects of the law. He will give deference to Attorney Zollinger and to the City
Council, the governing board. Jim said, while the public talked a lot about engineering, the
topography discussed was to describe where the neighborhood was located in relation to
other uses in the area. Attorney Rammell said City Council has tasked the Commission
with reconsideration without considering runoff, sewer, topography, and engineering for
drainage. We have trainings on allowing City Staff and the experts the City Council has
employed to deal with issues regarding these topics. The applicant stated that they are aware
of possible issues with these items but have worked with City Staff and believe these issues
can be worked through. Attorney Rammell can relate what was discussed, but he cannot
speak for Attorney Zollinger of the members of the City Council. Vince said, based on
Attorney Rammell’s comments, we are to imagine all land as flat. The Commission is not to
worry about topography, etc., but are to deal with land use only. Let Staff worry about
everything else. Is that a fair understanding?
Attorney Rammell said those are Vince’s words not his and reread legal’s quote at 2 hours,
27 minutes, City Attorney Stephen Zollinger discussed the appeal that was later granted by
City Council, “On appeal, did Planning & Zoning exercise some authority that is not there’s:
conversation about topography. You have an engineering department that deals with topography.
26 | P a g e
Talking about structures below that are not legally relevant. The appropriateness of the
recommendation is suspect.”
Vince said more training for the Commission then needs to be provided. Based on training
about Idaho Code 67-6508, some of the planning duties of the Commission are to consider
natural resources, hazardous areas, recreation, special areas or sites. Attorney Rammell
asked if Vince could see the distinction between when these things are considered.
Something is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. These are to be considered when
drafting a Comprehensive Plan. There is a distinction for Attorney Zollinger and City
Council between creating a Comprehensive Plan and determining if something is in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Vince said it further reads it is the duty of the
Commission to create a process to develop a Comprehensive Plan. Brad said it is our job to
decide if a request is appropriate, but it is not our job to decide if it will work or not – that is
up to Engineering to make sure it meets appropriate codes. Attorney Rammell said Brad’s
statement is fair. The Commission is put in a vulnerable liability position, when the Planning
& Zoning Commission does not put their trust in City Staff. There is a right for legal review
if everyone, who is an expert in the field, is saying the request is fine, but the Commission
thinking it is not. Attorney Rammell is a big proponent of the back and forth questions and
answers with City Staff. He understands the clarity questions to City Staff. At the same time,
there is deference given to those professionals. Jim wants to make sure as an engineer, he
understands engineering related to topography. But the topography in relation to preserving
the look and feel of an area, matters; we should be able to discuss that. If you are looking at
a river valley vs. a ridge, that is next to it, you may want the valley zoned differ ently than the
ridge to preserve the look and feel of that area. In that respect, the discussion on typography
does not have anything to do with the engineering aspect. Attorney Rammell can only
communicate the issues the Councilmembers had upon review.
Chairperson Smith asked someone to outline the differences between Low-Density
Residential 1 (LDR1) and Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). Attorney Rammell said this
is relevant to the discussion, but that should probably be brought in on the course of the
application discussion. He asked if the Commission had any more procedure discussions.
The applicant has been made aware that there will not be any new substantive new
information presented tonight. This is reconsideration of the information before the public
hearing was closed.
Applicant – Jake Young - 239 Ironside, Farmington, UT – He thanked the Commissioners
for their service; he understands they have a tough job to do. Jake will summarize some of
the things he and the Commissioners have discussed. The proposed rezone is approximately
thirty-two (32) acres on the east side of the city. The Comprehensive Plan dictates this area is
suitable for the zoning of Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Low-Density Residential 2
(LDR2), and Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1); this is one of the reasons Jake is
applying for the LDR2 zone. The zone change is then in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report does provide a recommendation for rezone. He has
met with City Staff a number of times and reviewed available utilities in the area: water and
sewer area available to the south, will connect up on the hill and connect down the hill into
Star View Drive; this is a good thing and will improve the circulation in the area.
27 | P a g e
There are hills on the property with steep slopes greater than the thirty (30%) percent slope
in these areas cannot be developed as per city code (10.09.010 PUD Lot Density). There
were concerns about stormwater due to the valley area. During discussion, there were
references to the 2014 flooding. Jake understands there have been improvements to the
stormwater system in Rexburg since that date. Engineering Standards for the City of
Rexburg require stormwater basins for the 100-year storm. The stormwater basins would
hold the water and meter it out for a significant event. The applicants are counting on
putting in the infrastructure for the stormwater. In regard to roads and transportation,
City ordinance requires a minimum of two road connections – this will be on Star View
Drive and along the church to the south. As part of good planning, he sees potential
connectivity to the east to the East Parkway Corridor. He is not proposing a road go
through anyone’s property; he did not propose this in July nor is he proposing this now. He
believes this rezone will help Rexburg. There is a need for missing middle housing between
single-family homes and apartments. The LDR2 is a good zone providing this type of
housing. Jake appreciates the Commission listening and considering their application.
Brad Brown – (online) – 719 W 4350 S, Riverdale, UT – He is really excited about being a
developer in Rexburg. They are excited to be a part of this town; make a beautiful project
that is a win for everyone. They will work on the concerns together with City Staff.
Commissioner Questions: None
Staff Review of P&Z discussion and City Council Minutes: Kyle Baldwin –
Jim asked Kyle to show the zoning on the overhead image. LDR2 is to the north and south
of the parcel, east and west is zoned LDR1. Chairperson Smith asked for the differences in
the zones between LDR1 and LDR2. Kyle stated in LDR1, single-family residences are
permitted, one unit per building and per lot. There is a twelve thousand (12,000) minimum
lot size, which is about 3.63 units per acre. Single-family lots in LDR2 require a minimum
eight thousand 8,000 square feet lots and if you want to do a twin home or duplex, you have
to have two (2) - five thousand (5,000) square feet lots or ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
This works out to be about eight (8) units per acre. Brad asked about possible uses. Kyle
answered in the LDR2 zone, units can be attached. Chairperson Smith asked about
townhomes. Kyle said townhomes are three (3) or more units in one structure, but this is
not allowed until LDR3. Brad asked about the implications of a Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D.). Kyle responded, greater densities could be achieved through a P.U.D. Attorney
Rammell said a P.U.D. would be a legislative decisions subject to a review of further
application and future meetings.
Commissioner Discussion: Aaron said Eaglewood is a blend of LDR1 and LDR2. There
has been a lot of negative play against the LDR2 land use. An attorney, dean of the
university, retired dean, retired business owner, local-business owner, blogger, home-
designer, retired couples – these are the kind of people he would like to live around. The
applicant’s request is appropriate. Aaron has read all the correspondence. There is always
talk about increased traffic. With this development, there will finally be connection to 1000
S. Aaron feels those in Hidden Valley will use this connection to University Blvd. and the
freeway; traffic will go both ways. He feels this is appropriate land use to the existing
landowners.
28 | P a g e
Eric asked if it would be possible to read back the motion. P&Z Motion from July 21, 2022,
was read:
“Motion to recommend the City Council deny (22-00420)
RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low-
Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2),
based on the surrounding area all meeting the LDR1 zone
requirements and the concerns development based on the
Commissioners’ conversation. Action: Deny, Moved by Vince Haley,
Seconded by Jim Lawrence.”
Eric believes there is a need for LDR2. He has not changed his vote. Eric’s concern once
the precedent is set on this parcel, further to the east, there could be a very dense
construction area, based on the fact this parcel is changed. This will have to be addressed at
a future date. Greater density would be needed to develop this parcel. He has confidence in
the Engineering Department that runoff will be improved with development. Brad’s
hesitation is the same – he does not have problem with duplexes and twin homes. He has a
similar concern about precedent. If a zone allows for something else, this has to be
considered in your decision. He would not like to see a higher density greater than the LDR2
zone on this parcel. Attorney Rammell said he does not want the board to consider specific
projects. The land could be sold with a separate plan that could maximize the use of the
zone. The Commission should consider the maximum the zone would allot. Brad would
make a motion with conditions. Chairperson Smith said the difference between LDR1 and
LDR2 is minimal. Jim said he does think a precedent will be set for this area. Right now, we
have a pretty good transition from LDR2 to the TAG. On the east side there is a ridge that
separates neighbors and zones. Attorney Rammell said there should not be discussion for
future projects. The precedent language puts us in a legally odd situation based on another
application. Language should be on the applicant’s parcel and the possibility on the
applicant’s parcel. Vince said he spoke with an individual looking for a larger lot size in
Rexburg; they cannot find one. There is a need for single-family homes, as well as the two-
unit homes. On the edge of town, he worries about Rural Residential 2 (RR2) and
Transitional Agriculture (TAG) adjacent to twin homes and duplexes. Chairperson Smith
said the applicant’s parcel does not border TAG; several parcels are in between the
applicant’s parcel and the TAG zoning to the east. The Rural Residential 2 (RR2) zone is in
Harvest Heights, which also does not border this parcel. Aaron said did not believe there
was written correspondence from Harvest Heights. Vince confirmed this fact. Attorney
Rammell said the board approved MDR1 in our Area of Impact for Rachel Whoolery’s
project. Vince said he voted against it.
MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00420)
RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low-Density
Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), because of the
contiguous uses of LDR2 to the north and south, and the recommendations of City
Staff that topography and run-off issues can be mitigated. Action: Approve, Moved
by Eric Erickson, Seconded by Aaron Richards.
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Brad suggested a condition the applicant
would not be allowed to pursue further density with a P.U.D. Attorney Rammell said
another application would be needed for a P.U.D.
29 | P a g e
VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 5, No = 4).
Yes: Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Eric Erickson, McKay Francis, Vanessa
Johnson.
No: Vince Haley, Jim Lawrence, Brad Wolfe, Bruce Casper
11. September 7, 2022, Alan Parkinson presented the application to City Council, where it was
tabled.
Mayor Merrill asked for a motion to amend the agenda to move Item #10 Items for
Consideration C. Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a rezone for Parcel No.
RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Dr. from Low Density Residential 1
(LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zone #22-00420 after being remanded back
to Planning & Zoning for the September 1st, 2022 meeting for additional consideration by
the commission to the beginning of the meeting.
Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a rezone for Parcel No.
RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Dr from Low Density Residential 1
(LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zone #22-00420 after being remanded back
to Planning & Zoning for the September 1st, 2022 meeting for additional consideration by
the commission. Designated as Ordinance No. 1291 if motion passes – Alan Parkinson
This item was tabled at the beginning of the meeting.
12. September 21, 2022, the application remained tabled on the City Council agenda.
Tabled Items:
Rezone of Parcel No RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Dr from Low Density
Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) Zone #22-00420. Tabled due to
some corrections needed by Planning & Zoning to allow densities to be determined by the zones
rather than the configuration of the homes.
Council Member Johnson wanted to explain that the reason this rezone is not being un-tabled
is because the development code has not been fixed, yet.
13. October 5, 2022, the application was un-tabled and presented to City Council by Alan
Parkinson.
Calendared Bills: (1:01:53)
A. Tabled Items: Those items which have been first read:
1. Take from the Table #22-00420 Rezone for Parcel No. RPRXBCA0291271, Located South
of Star View Dr from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2
(LDR2) zone– Alan Parkinson
Council Member Chambers asked if the sloped areas can be developed. City Attorney Zollinger said the
parcel has some sloped area that cannot be developed. The developer is aware that the city does not allow
development on edge where the slope is greater than 30 degrees.
30 | P a g e
Council Member Johnson said she does not understand why the proposed rezone was removed from the
table when the issue of why it was tabled has not been resolved. City Attorney Zollinger explained there was a
possibility for quick resolution to give the Planning and Zoning Commissioners a better understanding going
forward; however, in the absence of a quick resolution to those unresolved issues, the developer has requested
that it simply be considered on its merits both the zone change with or without the changes. Council Member
Johnson asked what happened to the loophole that was discussed. City Attorney Zollinger replied currently
that loophole is available to everyone. There is no indication this developer has any way of taking advantage of
it or otherwise.
Council Member Walker moved to take up off the table #22-00420 the Rezone for Parcel No.
RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Dr from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-
Density Residential 2 (LDR2) Zone; Council Member Chambers seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked
for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Johnson None
Council Member Chambers
Council Member Erickson
Council Member Walker
The motion carried.
Council Member Chambers disclosed that he received a letter from one of the residents in the last phase of
Hidden Valley Subdivision regarding the proposed rezone. He gave the letter to City Clerk Lovejoy. He said
he has also had a couple of conversations with residents that contacted him. In the letters and the
conversations, he has had several residents surrounding the proposed rezone. They have two great issues one
is the density increase in this area and the second concern is with the increase density would come greater
traffic generation that would cause a burden to the existing neighborhoods. Mayor Merrill asked the
Councilmembers to disclose if they have received letters, phone calls are any other form of communication
from residents regarding the proposed rezone. Council Member Walker said he received a letter from the
Benfields. City Attorney Zollinger asked if there was information in the letters that was different from what
was discussed in the public hearing. Council Member Johnson replied yes, there was information regarding
animal habitat. City Attorney Zollinger said there is not a protected animal habitat in this area. Council
Member Johnson said she received two other letters.
City Attorney Zollinger said the reason he is asking if there was new information is because the developer is
entitled to have access to new information that City Council has been made privy to, so the developer has an
opportunity to rebuttal. Council Member Chambers said in one piece of correspondence there was a
statement that there have been previous promises made to the residence about how this area would be
developed. Council Member Chambers said he did not feel comfortable with this statement to hold a current
property owner bound to what a pervious property owner may have decided without them having knowledge
of the promises made. City Attorney Zollinger cautioned the Councilmembers to not take that statement into
consideration whether it came through the hearing or otherwise. He said promises by prior property owners
are not binding upon the city.
31 | P a g e
Jake Young said in reviewing the contract from the seller there were no promises. The statement made
regarding animals in a protected habitat he is not aware of any terms regarding a protected habitat on this
property.
Council Member Chambers said regarding the two principal issues that residents have regarding this rezone
are the increased density and potential for increased traffic that would place the burden on existing
infrastructure. The LDR2 Zone would allow higher density such as twin homes. He said in his experience
regarding twin homes in a single-family residential area is that twin homes are a healthy device in residential
options and provides affordable housing. The research he has completed suggests families living in twin
homes generate fewer trips then a single family living on larger lots because younger families or older couples
live in twin homes. The younger families or older couples do not generate the trips that a single-family
residential home with teenagers would generate. In the city impact structure, it indicates duplexes and twin
homes having about half the trip generation that a single family residential would have. When it comes to
traffic issues the LDR2 densities is not a concern.
Council Member Erickson said he has a few concerns with the proposed rezone. The surrounding property
owners purchased their property believing the zone would remain the same only to have it changed to a
higher density.
Council Member Walker moved to approve Ordinance No. 1293 Rezone of Parcel No.
RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Drive from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-
Density Residential 2 (LDR2) Zone and consider first read; Council Member Chambers seconded the
motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Chambers Council Member Johnson
Council Member Walker Council Member Erickson
Mayor Merrill voted aye to break the tie vote
The motion carried.
Mayor Merrill said he believes the rezone request is the right zone for this area. He lives in a LDR2 Zoned
neighborhood with townhomes and condominiums in his neighborhood. The neighborhood is a wonderful
neighborhood.
14. October 19, 2022, The application was presented to City Council for a second read.
Ordinance No 1293 Rezone The Preserve, Parcel No RPRXBCA0291271 located south of
Star View Dr from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2)
zone #22-00420 – Alan Parkinson
ORDINANCE NO 1293
Rezone The Preserve, Parcel No RPRXBCA0291271, Rexburg, Idaho to Low Density Residential 2
(LDR2)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED
32 | P a g e
DESIGNATION OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED, SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, BE
CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND PROVIDING WHEN
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Discussion
Council Member Chambers moved to approve Ordinance No. 1293 Rezone of Parcel No.
RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Drive from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-
Density Residential 2 (LDR2) Zone and consider second read; Council Member Flora seconded the motion;
Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers Council Member Erickson
Council Member Walker Council President Busby
The motion carried
Mayor Merrill voted aye to break the tie vote
15. November 2, 2022, the application was presented to City Council for third read.
Ordinance No 1293 Rezone The Preserve, Parcel No RPRXBCA0291271 located south of
Star View Dr from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2)
zone #22-00420 – Alan Parkinson
ORDINANCE NO 1293
Rezone The Preserve, Parcel No RPRXBCA0291271, Rexburg, Idaho to Low
Density Residential 2 (LDR2)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND
33 | P a g e
PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED DESIGNATION OF THAT
CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED,
SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, BE
CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND
PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Council Member Walker moved to approve Ordinance No. 1293 Rezone of Parcel No.
RPRXBCA0291271, Located South of Star View Drive from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-
Density Residential 2 (LDR2) Zone and consider third read; Council Member Flora seconded the motion;
Mayor Merrill asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Flora Council Member Johnson
Council Member Chambers Council President Busby
Council Member Walker
The motion carried