Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 22-00489 - Hibbard Flats - Approx. 1175 N 12th W - Annexation & Rezone to LDR1 1 | P a g e #22 00489 Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Madison County’s Residential ® zone to Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) Approx. 1175 N 12th W & 1 lot in Copper Heights Blk2 Lot 14 1. July 12, 2022, An application was received for a Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Madison County’s Residential ® zone to Low-Density Residential 1(LDR1) from Brandon Winter. 2. July 15, 2022, Correct affidavit was received, and fees were paid. 3. July 25, 2022, Staff Reviews were completed. 4. July 28, 2022, Notice for the Planning & Zoning hearing was sent to the newspaper to be published on August 2nd and August 16th, 2022. Notice was also sent to the paper for the City Council hearing to be published on August 9th and August 23rd, 2022. 5. August 1, 2022, Notice was mailed to all property owners within 350’ for the Planning & Zoning hearing. 6. August 2, 2022, Notice was mailed to all property owners within 350’ for the City Council hearing. 7. August 24, 2022, Notice was posted on the property for both hearings. 8. September 1, 2022, Kyle Baldwin presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission. (22-00489) - Hibbard Flats - Approx. 1175 N 12th W (RPR06N39E140900) & 1 parcel (Blk2 Lot 14) in the Copper Heights Subdivision – Annexation and Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Madison County’s Residential (R) zone to Low- Density Residential 1 (LDR1). The parcel at approx. 1175 N 12th W is in the City’s Area of Impact, but the Copper Heights Block 2 Lot 14 is not. The parcels have a combined area of 62.38 acres. – Brandon Winter, McKay Francis (action) (1:50:34) Applicant Presentation: Brandon Winter, McKay Francis – Available for questions. Commissioner Questions: None 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 Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – LDR1 would allow twelve thousand (12,000) square feet lots with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. With infrastructure subtracted, there would be about two hundred fifty single-family homes. Commissioner Questions: Aaron clarified twelve thousand (12,000) square feet is the minimum; lot sizes could be larger. Vince asked Kyle if as a resident of the city, that he could drill his own well. Kyle said he understands this is an option. Vince asked if someone could drill a well in the cit y. Alan said if you want to drill a well, you can and you can maintain it. Most people do not due to the cost. Attorney Rammell said if you are annexed into the city and your septic fails, you do have to connect to city services depending on the distance to connection. Aaron said the situation is simple math: $40,000 for a well vs. $2,500 for a water meter. Chairperson Smith confirmed the Copper Heights parcel will also have to meet the infrastructure requirements. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 8:24PM. Favor: None Neutral: Ken Dunn – 2234 Ferris Ln – He is probably the person most impacted by the development of these parcels, because he lives on the current cul-de-sac. He lives in Hibbard and he knows the good growth is needed. Are the lots too small? Are we allowing too many units? 3.63 lots per acre. This is 175 lots in a mostly landlocked piece of land. Where is the traffic going to go? The road of Ferris Lane is not very wide with two curves in it. Even if there is another road and the traffic can be shared, the traffic will increase. Why can’t we have the same size of lots as Pine Brook? He cannot think of any reason except to enrich people. The smaller the lot, the bigger the problem. He hopes this much traffic will not come down these little lanes. Incorporating the Copper Heights lot will also provide connectivity for more traffic. The devil is in the details. We need to know what is really happening here. What was learned in Pine Brook is once the development reaches a certain point, it just flows. Opposed: Eric Gaskell – 1729 N 3000 W – Please put a stipulation that the ordinance be followed. The devil is in the details. We have already seen what happens when you miss a detail. We see a track record here; these developers did not even try to correct the detail. Rob Wood – 2200 Ferris Lane – There are a lot of bad sides to growth. He moved from the heart of Rexburg to a more rural area on purpose. They bought a home that was already built, so he and his wife did not contribute to further development out in Madison County. Approved development takes away from our agricultural heritage. Rob has worked in farming for years, and he sees tonight’s request as further degradation of the heritage of Madison County. No more single-family homes are needed at this location. Traffic at this location is already bad. Understanding Madison County’s laws, if there is sufficient traffic to warrant the widening of Ferris Lane, Madison County can take fifteen (15’) feet from his property with an easement and they do not have to pay him for the land; he does not 3 | P a g e think this is right to do to benefit this development. He feels it is highly inappropriate a Commissioner engaged in ex-parte communications, when they know it is against the rules. And the Commissioner is the applicant for this request. Rob is not trying to impugn his character, but he feels it taints the proceedings. Christopher Cheney – 1716 N 3000 W - He seconds what has been said so far. You need to make your opinions know at the beginning or they no longer matter. Quarter-acre lots do not fit in this area. Stipulate that only one (1) acre lots would be allowed. It is great to hook up to the city infrastructure. The request should match the look and feel of Hibbard. Let’s nail down what is going to be built. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. None. Written Correspondence: WRITTEN RESPONSE #1 – Gary Armstrong, Madison County Planning & Zoning Administrator – 4 | P a g e WRITTEN RESPONSE #2 – Aaron Peterson – 1365 Meadowview Ave. WRITTEN RESPONSE #3 – Brantley Brooks – 1127 Greenside Loop 5 | P a g e WRITTEN RESPONSE #4 – Shawn Jensen – 576 E 5th S WRITTEN RESPONSE #5 – Gale and Joan Francis – 4727 Columbus Ave, WA Gale and Joan Francis 4727 Columbus Ave. Bellingham, WA 98229 August 23, 2022 Rexburg City Council Attn: Tawnya Grover, Admin Asst. 35 N 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Tawnya.grover@rexburg.org Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council: We are currently residents of Bellingham, Washington. However, for many reasons, we are making plans to move to the Rexburg area, toward the northwest quarter of the city. After a number of trips to decide on the location in which to build a home, we have chosen the area which is currently under consideration for a variance request. For the following reasons, we support the concept of allowing a development of smaller lot size, and annexation into the City of Rexburg: 6 | P a g e • As a retired couple, and having discussed this with a number of like-minded couples, we cannot maintain and keep up with a lot larger than ⅓ to ¼ acre. We will be building a custom home and estimate the market value/cost to be in excess of $600,000.00. The residential developments in that area are very appealing, but lots over ½ acre are simply not fit for our needs. • Because of the apparent expansion of commercial enterprise in this quadrant of the city, as well as the announcement of a second temple built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we anticipate that friends and acquaintances who also are empty- nesters, also desire to locate in this area. Although we do not desire to encourage high- density housing in our ideal neighborhood, and loving the merging of a rural and suburban area near the Teton River (and a golf course), we hope that an accommodation for smaller lots for single-family dwellings of a similar value would be available. • Many senior couples that we have talked to, agree with our desires. Having heard of the plans of an expanded airport, commercial and cultural opportunities within Madison County, and the access to beautiful rivers, reservoirs, mountains like the ranges close to Rexburg, commercial enterprises which appear to be interested in coming to the Rexburg area also (Building supply companies, grocers, restaurants, medical facilities, etc.), added to the attractiveness of this area for many senior but independent couples. Certainly, it has piqued our interest in locating there. Therefore, we would like to encourage and support a development of single-family residences near the Teton River, the Teton River golf course, and the area west of the planned temple. We appreciate the opportunity of adding our voice to what we hope will be our final residence in the Rexburg, Idaho area. We plan to build and move in 2023. Sincerely /s/ Gale K. Francis /s/ Joan Francis Gale and Joan Francis gfrancis@xmission.com WRITTEN RESPONSE #6 – Todd Webb – 1197 Torrey Ln 7 | P a g e Rebuttal: McKay Francis - Everyone wants to see the plat map ahead of time. This does not happen until later. Mr. Marx has a lot of integrity to state the conversation. The same flyer was taken to every single landowner; the same information was taken to everyone they talked to. He reminded everyone about their confidence in Staff’s ability to do their job. The roads were rated through the traffic study to be able to allow the traffic for this development. Attorney Rammell stands by his analysis. Make no mistake moving forward this was ex-parte communication and he is confident this has been addressed. Ex-parte communication should not be standard practice for any of the Commissioners. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 8:36PM. 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 co nversation or contact. None. Commissioner Discussion: Bruce believes the quarter-acre lots are too small. Most people who live in the area have at least a half-acre or one-acre lot. LDR1 is too small. Vince said McKay mentioned he spoke with a lot of people and those here can only be considered. Also, when it comes to curb, gutter, and sidewalk, Staff will work out the logistics of these requirements. The city will work with the county moving forward. Aaron said Sunrise Meadows used to be a farm; Eaglewood used to be a farm; all of Rexburg used to be a farm. What is the proper use of investment the city has made in utilities for different areas of the city? Investment by the city has been made to service the area with water, sewer, and roads in this area of the city; this is a proper application for that investment. Eric agrees with Mr. Casper; the proper transmission would be something in the area of Rural Residential 2 (RR2). The density constitutes a small city in the middle of one-acre lots. He asked if Pine Brook is RR1 or RR2. Aaron said Part of Pine Brook is Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and most is RR2. Eric is assuming the plan was for this lot to develop as RR2; this seems like a better transition. He does not know if this will sway his vote or not; Eric is on the fence. Jim said he is confused, because we just voted to change the Comprehensive Plan map to allow this zoning. Confusion is created when we approve one and deny the other when it comes to Comprehensive Plan Map changes and Rezones. Vince said do not let someone else tell you what to vote. Hibbard is growing. The city utilities are in place to support the growth. Jim appreciated some of the written correspondence from people who want to live in this area. The approval of this request would allow for lots that are more affordable than the larger lots in the area. Vince confirmed this testimony came from Todd Webb, who is a homebuilder. Aaron said even though the Pine Brook rezone failed, the lots were listed individually and no one is pursuing them; there are half-acre lots on the market with utilities and no response. What does the market need? There will never be another Pine Brook; the homes would be very expensive. Bruce says we are talking 8 | P a g e an awful lot about Pine Brook and this should have no bearing on our decision. Attorney Rammell said the application should be considered on its own merits. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00489) the Annexation and Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Madison County’s Residential (R) zone to Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Hibbard Flats, at Approx. 1175 N 12th W (RPR06N39E140900) & 1 parcel (Blk2 Lot 14) in the Copper Heights Subdivision, because it fits within the future plans of the city, in the Impact zone and with the city utilities there, it makes sense to allow this particular zone. Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Vince Haley. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None Attorney Rammell said the voting on this matter is not as clear cut as you would normally see. The county representatives on the Commission have a greater weight than the remaining Commissioners. VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 1). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Aaron Richards, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson. No: Bruce Casper 9. September 7, 2022, Kyle Baldwin presented the application to City Council. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. – Annexation of Approximately 1175 N 12th W and Rezone from Madison County’s Residential ® and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zones to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) Zone #22-00489. Designated as Ordinance No 1289 if motion passes, and considered 1st read – Kyle Baldwin Planner Baldwin reviewed a map of the proposed annexation propert y. The property is in the city’s Impact area. The applicant is requesting a Low Density Residential 1 Zone. There is capacity for water and sewer. All storm water will have to be han dled on site. Council Member Johnson asked if Madison County has approved the change. Planner Baldwin said the county has not approved the Comprehensive Plan Map change; however, a public hearing is scheduled for next week. 9 | P a g e Brian Winter said he is the applicant for the proposed annexation and rezone. The property is adjacent to the city limits. He was one of the developers of the Copper Heights subdivision. The annexation is a great opportunity to tie into the city utility services, which are already partly stubbed. There may be several connections to the property at the Northeast corner, and the second connection on 212 West. A traffic study was completed, and they will continue to complete more studies if needed. He is requesting one of the lowest zone densities. Council President Busby asked if there is going to be an en trance to the north of the property. Mr. Winter said there are only two entrances. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing Public Testimony in favor of the proposal (5-minute limit): None Public Testimony neutral to the proposal (5-minute limit): None Public Testimony opposed to the proposal (5-minute limit): Brady Ward said he lives in the Sunrise Meadows subdivision, which is north of this proposed annexation. He has a few concerns about the annexation process and the letters sent to the surrounding property owners. There were three different letters about three different hearings and two different dates and at first glance they looked like the same letter. He believes not knowing the letters were each different, it caused confusion and affected people’s ability to attend the Planning and Zoning public hearing that was held on September 1st. Another concern he has is how confusing the process of the two separate proposals that were considered. The first proposal was to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map and the second proposal to annex and rezone the property. In the hearing, it was evident that the public did not necessarily understand the importance of the first hearing because there was very little comment or discussion about the Comprehensive Plan Map change. So, then the commissioners recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan change, but when the commissioners deliberated on the second proposal which was the annexation and rezone, there was more discussion and public comments; however, by that point at least a few of the commissioners said, “well we've already recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map change”. He said the commissioners thought by not approving the annexation and rezone it would be a contradiction of the Comprehensive Plan and that kind of discussion from the commissioners quashed any further discussion. 10 | P a g e Mr. Ward said he believes there were some valid points made in opposition to this request, so his third concern is about the proposal itself. When looking at Ferris Lane to the north of the proposed subdivision, those lots are 1.3 acres and if that road continues to the west, the rezoning will allow for .275-acre lots causing an abrupt change to the neighborhood. He said in his opinion the lot size variations are not orderly growth. He said he has reviewed several city-zoning maps and was unable to find another street in the city that continues in the manner that this street will continue with a RR1 Zone to LDR1 Zone on the same street. Mr. Ward recommended the rezone be denied and ask the developers to consider an RR2 zone request instead of LDR1. Ken Dunn said he agrees with everything Mr. Ward stated. He said when he addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission, he had indicated being in the neutral position because he was there to learn about the proposal, now he is opposed to this rezone for two main reasons. The first reason is the surrounding properties are one acre or greater including the development Mr. Winter recently finished in this area. He said the lot sizes are going from one third or as small as ¼ which is an abrupt change. The number of units that could be packed into that area could be as many as 140. The next question is what about the traffic, how will the residents enter and exit that area. He said he measured the road going into Pinewood and found Ferris Lane is 2/3 of the width of the road that goes into Pinewood. There would be more traffic coming through the two connecting roads. He said he completely agrees with the comments about the way this process happened and it being confusing. Most citizens are not planners or developers; they received notices that seemed to contradict one another. When he visited with his neighbors about the rezone proposal, there was confusion and many of them did not even understand the rezone. They were under the impression the LDR1 Zone was like the surrounding properties. They did not know the lot size was a third or 1/4 of the lot sizes that currently surrounds them. Once they understood the rezone change , many surrounding property owners were against the rezone. Mr. Dunn said he spoke with everybody whose property connects to this property and without exception; he did not find anyone that was supportive of this dramatic change surrounding his or her property. He said he looks to City Council to do what is best for the community and hopes they consider approving nothing that would be smaller than the RR2 Zone. He said he understands some may argue that because the utilities are existing it doesn't make sense to keep acre lots; however, to make such a dramatic change to the area so quickly seems to be fueled by only the desire for profit . He requested if the property cannot be zoned RR2. Then he would ask that the property west of Ferris Lane, which is likely going to attract all the traffic to 12 West, remain RR2 or greater to reduce the problems that are associated with trying to put that much traffic on a narrow road. Maria Nate said she is typically a property rights defender; however, she asked City Council to take into consideration the disruption of having smaller lot sizes in the middle of one -acre lots. She asked for the neighborhood to stay the way it feels and looks. As for traffic concerns, she drives down 12th West every day to go to work and that road is getting more congested. She said with the development of these new subdivisions in the surrounding areas and the only way to go into town is through 12th West, the traffic congestion will continue to grow. She asked if there are plans to address the traffic congestion on 12th West. She is also concerned about the narrowness of Ferris Lane and the possibility of having to take 15 feet of 11 | P a g e easement from her property to widen Ferris Lane. Her home is only 40 feet back from the road; they purposely built the home close to the road to feel more neighborly. She said having her property taken from her without compensation; it feels like a bit too much. The Comprehensive Plan Map is a tool; it is supposed to be used to keep like-minded communities together. Slamming quarter acre lots right next to larger lots is not the right thing to do for the community. She is against this proposal. Ryan Laird said he is the Zone 3 Board of Trustee for the Madison School District. He stated by saying how blessed we are as a community and as a school district. Many people care about how and where the youth of the community is educated. Over the past two years, the school district has had two levy votes and a bond for the new Hibbard Elementary School and for the addition to the Madison Junior High School. The margins that we are starting to see on these votes are getting very tight. On the bond for the elementary school, it only passed by 12 votes. The levy renewal from last week only passed by 31 votes and in comparison, the same levy renewal two years ago passed by over 600 votes. He believes residents are getting tired of having to fund new project after new project, it makes the whole School Board sick when we must continue to ask for more and more funding from the taxpayers. He spoke to Superintendent Lords, Board Chairman Powell, and the other trustees, and they all have the same concerns with the growth-taking place in the city and county. He does not agree that the taxpayer should be stuck with the costs of building new schools due to all the new housing developments. One of the developers, Mr. Francis, came around to each of their homes and said the city told him he could go as high as the LDR3 Zone on the property; however, he only asked for LDR1. Mr. Laird explained the potential impact the LDR1 Zone would have on the school district. He said based on the amount of land in this rezone, it would allow up to 140 homes to be developed. A neighboring development has the potential to add an additional 60 homes, so there is the potential of 200 additional homes. He spoke with the City of Rexburg Economic Development Director to ask for information that showed the average household with children in Madison Cou nty. The average household has approximately 2.8 children under the age of 18 and if you multiply that number by 200 new homes, it is just over 490 additional school aged children . To put the additional number of children into perspective, the capacity of a new elementary school is 375 students. The taxpayers in the Madison school district are paying about $20 million for the new school. Mr. Laird said the Madison School District tries to keep the classroom sizes as close to 25 students as possible. This development would require the school district to build a new school as well as adding on to other schools. He said to support the growth from this development another 20-million-dollar bond would need to pass. He said Mr. Francis will likely be successful with this development and that is great. He wants to see people succeed; however, not on the backs of the taxpayers of the City of Rexburg and Madison County. He asked City Council to consider keeping the zoning at the lowest density as possible and, speaking on behalf of the Madison School Board, he strongly recommends the RR2 Zone for this property like the Pine Brook Estates across 12 West. Mr. Laird said subdivision developers typically present their plans to the Superintendent and ask him about any implications the development might have on the school district. This meeting of course takes place before the developer meets with the Planning and Zoning Committee. They appreciate when developers are willing 12 | P a g e to work with the school district regarding growth. He said unfortunately, Mr. Francis did not contact the school district on either project. Laurie Cardon said she and her husband were out of the country when the notices went out. Upon returning, they were informed of all the different changes. They were also informed that the lots would not be smaller than a half-acre; however, once the zone is changed there is no going back. She urged the Councilmembers to deny the LDR1 Zone and recommended RR1 or RR2 zones for the property. She expressed her concerns with the Ferris Lane entrance. In the winter, the road is slippery and difficult to turn into the subdivision and adding more traffic would cause more of a hazard. She said her neighbor’s property on the corner by the entrance has had to replace their fence several times from people running into it during the winter and she does not believe the widening of the road will help mitigate the hazards. Mrs. Cardon said she is grateful as a community we can build and grow; however, she cannot trust the word of someone telling her this property is going to be developed a certain way. She said she did not attend the first meeting; however, in the meeting minutes she thought they said the lots were half an acre. Then later, come to find out, the minutes were not clear on the lot size and the lots are smaller than half an acre. She said approving the rezone without truly knowing how it will affect people is the wrong decision. The traffic down 12th West at 8:30 in the morning is very congested. She said she is concerned without widening 12th West before development occurs, there will be more traffic issues and vehicle accidents during the winter months. Rob Wood said he echoes the statements made already in opposition to the proposed zone change. One of the major concerns he has is regarding the added traffic the development will cause. He said he agrees with Maria Nate’s comments regarding Ferris Lane being in the county. If the development were to occur, the county has a 30-foot easement to widen Ferris Lane if need be and, from the centerline easement, an additional 15 feet on each side of the road. Some residents have developed in the easement such as trees, sprinkler systems, etc. The county is not required to compensate the property owner for the easement. There is a high possibility the existing property owners will lose some of their property from someone else’s development. The existing property owner wou ld replace the items lost in the easement such as sprinklers at their expense even though they are not getting anything out of the development. Mr. Wood said he attend the Planning and Zoning meeting last week and spoke about the importance of Madison County’s agricultural heritage. He grew up working on farms, so he and his wife moved into Madison County to live in a rural area and to still be somewhat close to town. One of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners told him that because he had not lived in a teepee on his property, he really did not have the right to talk about agricultural heritage. He asked the Councilmembers to inform the commissioner, when people are concerned about losing their property, it is not appropriate to belittle the property owners. He said he thought that comment was odd in a public meeting. Mr. Wood said in terms of planning and zoning, he appreciates someone’s ability to try to better themselves. They have the right to try and develop the property ; however, those who stand to lose something also have the right to be opposed to the cause of the loss. He believes this is important to remember, there are people who already live adjacent to the property and do not want to see this happen. There are people who would 13 | P a g e rather see similar lot sizes in place. The lot sizes under the requested zone are a jarring difference to the already existing lots. It looks like an in-town neighborhood in a rural area. McKay Francis said this is the fourth subdivision in the last three years that he has developed in Madison County. This is the first one in which he is asking the city to annex from the impact zone. The impact zone means the city declares this area a place that is open to growth in that corridor. Mr. Laird made a comment regarding developers informing the school district about a development to discuss the possible impacts the development may create on schools. There is a process both the city and county have in place to send letters to the taxing districts that includes the school district. The letters contain his conta ct information and not once has the school district responded. He understands a new Superintendent started in the middle of those proceedings; however, phone messages were left without reply. As for the taxation of the community members in forms of bonds that are voted upon for the school district, it has little to do with this development. He said if the average number of children in a household is 2.8 not all the children will be elementary school aged. The community members have voted to pass the b onds the school district has needed due to growth. Mr. Francis mentioned t he population of Madison County is currently 50,000 residents and in 10 years, that number could double. He questioned where another 50,000 residents are going to live. Mr. Francis said he is a member of the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission and lives in the Impact Zone on the south end of town. There was a hearing last month in which the city was proposing to declare more Impact Zone to the north of the city in the Salem area. The Salem residents did not want to be in the city’s Impact Zone. The Sunrise Meadow area has been a part of Rexburg’s Impact Zone since 2002. He developed a 60-lot subdivision to the west of this area and those lots sold in three and a half months, meaning the demand of people trying to build single-family homes in our county and in this area is extensive. Many people want to move here; however, do not want one-acre lots. They want to be able to leave for a year and a half to two years, lock their door and not worry about taking care of a full acre of land. There is a market in the city/county for smaller lots; however, there are not many option s available for people who want less than an acre lot. When he developed the subdivision to the west, there was opposition. They were having difficulty finding a way to bring sewer and water to that area. The major complaints from the surrounding property owners were the number of new wells and septic systems needing drilled to service the subdivision. There were concerns about wells drying up because the existing wells were drilled sha llow. As much as he tried, it was not feasible to connect to city services at that time. The property was also not in the Impact Zone. Mr. Francis said when this property became available, the utilities were already stubbed across the street, and it is in the city Impact Zone. The Comprehensive Plan Map change designation he requested was LDR1 to MDR1 with the lowest density of these two zones. He said he met with city staff and explained the proposed development is essentially Pine Brook phase three that did not happen because of the 2008-2009 recession. As a result of the recession, homes were developed across the street; however, the original plan for this part of the development would have twin homes, townhomes, and single-family homes. He said if the original plan were to continue, there is potential for a lot of density from a developer's perspective. When he developed the property to the west, many of those homes are $700,000 to $800,000 single-family homes and these same types of homes could still fit in the proposed rezone area. He mentioned everyone wants to see a plat map before a hearing; however, the expenses for a plat map are high and without a zone approval it would not be feasible. Mr. Francis explained several residents mentioned traffic concerns during this hearing. The fact that traffic is going to increase due to development is correct. There are engineers, who quantify the added traffic and how to mitigate the traffic flow on city roads. The highway is at 20% of its daily capacity and calculated through 14 | P a g e the number of trips per household. The general practices of civil engineering will tell you what these roads can handle. He said as part of the Pine Brook subdivision development agreement, they gave up more than an entire lane of easement in front for the subdivision. The proposed rezone would have the same easement requirement. The city and county would use the easement at their discretion. He believes the infrastructure is there to support the rezone of this property and there are many reasons connecting to city water and sewer is beneficial instead of drilling individual wells. Brian Winter mentioned in their original proposal they only had two connecting roads off 12th West and no connectivity to Ferris Lane. He said they had taken into consideration the entirety of the area and inter- connectivity is extremely important. As they consider the connecting roads, Ferris Lane was not intended to be a cul-de-sac; it is being used as a turnaround lane. The intent of this road is to continue for future growth. They have paid for traffic studies and for engineers to come to complete traffic studies at the roundabout and at the intersection by the church. One of the major challenges they encountered was the drilling of individual wells and septic in the nearby area. They are trying to resolve that problem respectfully and trying to do their diligence with connecting to city services. Mr. Winter said they have looked at many properties in the area and this is probably the best property they can possibly find to annex into the city to develop single-family homes and allow for the continued growth in Rexburg. Council Member Flora asked, if Ferris Lane needs to be widened, would the developer need an easement therefore having to go into the resident’s yard? Public Works Director Davidson explained the widening of Ferris Lane has not been contemplated because the volume of traffic does not warrant the widening of the road. He said now it is unlikely they will widen the road. Council President Busby asked, since the connecting road splits between city and county, who will maintain the road and remove the snow during the winter. Public Works Director Davidson replied when the roads connect the city and county work together to maintain and plow the roads. Council President Busby asked Mr. Winter about the connecting ro ad through Hibbard Flats to Copper Heights. Mr. Winter replied he is required to have a stub and connectivity to the west and south. Council Member Flora asked, if there are pl ans for an additional road going through 12th or is all the traffic coming through Sunrise. Mr. Winters said Sunrise Road and 12 West are the primary roads. The additional roads cannot be constructed so close together, the roads need to be a certain distance away. The stub is on the south so there could be another road coming out of the subdivision. Council President Busby asked if the new road is going to be as wide as the roads in the Pine Brook subdivision. Public Works Director Davidson said the roads will be 68 feet right of way and 44 feet curb to curb. Council Member Johnson asked if the City Council did not approve this request, the zone would remain the same. In addition, even though the Comprehensive Plan would no longer match the zoning. City Attorney Zollinger said a city zone would need to be attached to the property when a property is annexed. The city has an RR1 and RR2 zone available so if City Council were to vote to annex and designate LDR1 and the county chose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan. It would be a very short-lived moment for the county because it would then immediately come to the city having been annexed. The city would be responsible for re- designating the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Johnson asked if the decision were flip-flopped, and City Council approved the annexation would it stay the zone it is because she knows the county is changing their Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Zollinger replied yes, the county’s re-designation of their Comprehensive Plan would have nothing to do with the City Council approval of the annexation and rezone. 15 | P a g e Council Member Flora explained in the last two to three months every single City Council meeting has been about growth. In addition, every part of the city has been touched by growth. As City Councilmembers, they are faced with the same decision and every single time everybody is against it. The question is, where does the city grow? She explained she lives in a RR2 Zone and the fields next to her subdivision were rezoned LDR3 and so now there are townhomes and twin homes, and it is a great neighborhood and yes, there were growing pains and more traffic with that development. She said she feels conflicted because the city is growing, there is nowhere else to grow inside of the city, and LDR1 is one of the city’s low-density zones. The City Council and city staff has been asking residents the question . How do you want the city to grow? The response has been the “city needs more affordable housing”. To have more affordable housing, the lot sizes must be smaller so then the question is where to put these smaller lot sizes? However, every time there are requests for a rezone that allows smaller lots the reaction from the surrounding residents is the same , “not in our backyard”. She said most developers are requesting MDR Zones and hardly any low density. Therefore, when a developer requests a low-density zone, to her it is more appealing because there is not the high density of twin homes and apartments, its single family residential. Council Member Chambers said these are gut wrenching decisions; growth is a reality, so the issue becomes how we manage that growth most effectively. The transition to a lower density is good because if we do not do it here, it is going to happen further west. The transition in zones must go somewhere. He said if City Council approved this request, city staff would make sure that there is interconnectivity. The city will have an economic expansion of utilities in that area, which is positive because it is difficult to accommodate growth. Yet listening to these concerns and acting upon them is difficult; however, he is in favor of the annexation and rezone because this transition is necessary in this area and is in the best interest of the community. Council Member Johnson said she agrees the decisions have been difficult; however, she b elieves people want to have all different types of lot sizes and the city’s Comprehensive Plan indicates the city should have all different kinds of lot sizes. There are people that keep moving further and further out to have bigger lots and the growth keeps going further out to where developers want to put smaller lots next to them. She agrees that it is a major difference to go from one acre lots to having 3.6 homes per acre. One of her major concerns are the overcrowding of schools as America’s Family Community, she does not know how as a City Council they cannot take into consideration the crowding of schools. She said she has children and does not want them to attend an overcrowded school. Mayor Merrill said the City Council can listen to the concerns regarding the overcrowding of schools; however, the School Board has their job to do regarding schools and City Council has their job regarding growth in t he city. Council Member Johnson said the city growth is out pacing what the schools can sustain and as City Councilmembers they should consider that maybe the growth is not the right time in that location. Mayor Merrill said something to consider when discussing school bonds with additional growth is there are more taxpayers to help shoulder that burden. Council Member Johnson said she would like to see the numbers of the new tax dollars to see if the taxes make up the costs that growth brings into the city. Council Member Flora said there is an obvious demand for 140 new homes and if these homes are not developed in this area, they are going to be developed somewhere else. It is still increasing the school load regardless of where the growth takes place in the city. She said the difficult part of this decision is people saying yes, we need growth just not by their property. There is a point Rob Wood made regarding resident s not having to bear the burden of their land being taking away by having to widen the road even though there is an easement. 16 | P a g e Council Member Flora said 12th West is extremely busy, especially in the morning. If the vehicles coming from the Sunrise Subdivision do not make it through the traffic light; there is a vehicle back up. Public Works Director Davidson explained when a large development is being considered, a traffic impact study is completed. In the study, different intersections are reviewed to determine the needs in these locations in addition every 10 years a Transportat ion Master Plan update is prepared to determine which roadways are going to need capacity increases. He said 12th West is slated as a minor arterial so at some point the road will go to a five-lane configuration as traffic demands grow to that extent. The timing of intersections and highways are reviewed. Where the bulk of the traffic is going through, they look at how they can adjust the signal timing to get the best traffic flow through those signals. He said with more and more traffic, they start looking at adding lanes and additional turn lanes. The stack distance of vehicles waiting through a traffic signal is considered. He knows in Rexburg it seems like a big deal; however, as the city grows, there will be more times when you must wait through a traffic signal before you get to go again. That is normal with growth as the population grows in different areas. Council Member Walker said he agrees with Council Member Chambers and Council Member Flora in that growth is going to continue to occur and if it does not happen in this area, it will happen in a different area. This developer is only asking for an LDR1 zone when most developers are asking for LDR2, MDR1, and MDR2. He believes the annexation and rezone are a good transition for this area being so close to the city as it is. Council President Busby asked if the annexation is going to require curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscape strip. Public Works Director Davidson explained some of the challenges the Public Works Department encounters when going from one zone to another is that one zone may require curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscape strip and the other does not. In the RR1 zone, setbacks go further back so most people park in their driveways and not on the street. He said generally, when city streets boarder up to the county road, the city cross section does not line up exactly with the county’s cross section. Council Member Walker moved to approve Ordinance No. 1289 Annexation of Approximately 1175 N 12th W and Rezone from Madison County’s Residential ® and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zones to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) Zone; 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 Walker Council President Busby The motion carried. 10. September 21, 2022, the application was presented to City Council for the 2nd read. Ordinance No 1289 Annexation of Approximately 1175 N 12th W and Rezone from Madison County Residential and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zones to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) Zone #22-00489 17 | P a g e Council Member Chambers moved to approve Ordinance No 1289 Annexation of Approximately 1175 N 12th W and Rezone from Madison County Residential and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zones to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) Zone #22-00489 and consider it second read; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Council President Busby asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Chambers Council Member Johnson Council Member Walker Council President Busby The motion carried. 11. October 5, 2022, the application was presented to City Council for the 3rd read and final decision. Ordinance No 1289 Annexation of Approximately 1175 N 12th W and Rezone from Madison County Residential and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zone to Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) Zone #22-00489 – Alan Parkinson Council Member Erickson said some discussion was missed regarding changing the zone from RR1 to LDR1. He is concerned about the abrupt change when it should be a transition between zones such as RR1 to RR2 to LDR1. Mayor Merrill said this concern was discussed quite at length and is a valid point; however, there is the possibility of similar developments in the surrounding area. This development is providing the opportunity to have more affordable housing. Mayor Merrill said if people desire a bigger lot, they can purchase two lots and have a half acre or acre lot. Council Member Erickson said there is very little RR2 Zone in city and it keeps being taken out of the equation same with the LDR1 Zone. There are many people looking for one-acre lots. 18 | P a g e Council Member Chambers to approve Ordinance No. 1289 Annexation of Approximately 1175 N 12th W and Rezone from Madison County Residential and Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Zone to Low Densi ty Residential 1 (LDR1) Zone; Council Member Walker 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.