Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 25-00877 - Moody Road Townhome - 396 W Moody Rd - Rezone fr TAG to LDR3Reason for Decision 25-00877 – Moody Road Townhome - 396 W Moody Rd - Rezone fr TAG to LDR3 September 2, 2025, An application was received from Marco Diaz with Utah Development Group to rezone 38 parcels from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3). September 2, 2025, Payment was received for the application. September 3, 2025, Application paperwork was completed. September 3, 2025, Staff reviews were assigned. September 18, 2025, Staff reviews were approved. September 24, 2025, Staff Report was completed. (See attached) September 22, 2025, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published September 26, 2025, and October 3, 2025. September 24, 2025, Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners. October 8, 2025, Notice was posted on the property. October 16, 2025, The application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Public Hearing – (25-00877) Moody Rd Townhomes – Rezone from TAG to LDR3 - Located at approximately 396 W Moody Road, the application is to change the zoning map of 11.67 acres from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3). – Marco Diaz (Action) Conflict of Interest/Ex parte Conversation: Chairperson Smith asked the Commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest or conversations held outside of this meeting relative to this particular subject. Presentation: Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson presented the rezone request for approximately 11.67 acres located at 396 West Moody Road. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) to allow for higher-density residential development. The property was recently platted and is either sold or under contract for purchase. The proposed LDR3 zoning is consistent with surrounding zoning designations, including Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) and Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2), and aligns with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for future land use in the area. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the application meets all zoning and planning requirements. However, infrastructure limitations were noted. Currently, there is no sewer or water service available at the site. The nearest sewer connection is located on 2nd East, and the City is planning to install a new sewer line that will serve the area. Construction of this line is expected to begin in the spring. The developer is aware that development cannot proceed until sewer service is available. Water service will also need to be extended from 2nd East, where it currently ends near the church property. The developer will be responsible for bringing water to the site. Despite these caveats, staff recommended approval of the rezone request and advised the Commission to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Administrator Parkinson informed the Commission that funding for the free-span highway crossing has not yet been reinstated. The project remains on hold, although it has not been officially canceled. Commissioner Francis asked whether it would be logical to install water lines while the road is open for sewer improvements. Administrator Parkinson responded that utility installation is typically the responsibility of the developer. Developers may choose to install both sewer and water lines simultaneously if needed, and the city is open to coordinating with them on such efforts. Commissioner Geddes inquired about nearby zones. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the area is primarily zoned as Transitional Agriculture (TAG), including the adjacent field and most surrounding lots. He showed the Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) and Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) zones to the east. He showed the comprehensive plan map, indicating that the area is designated as intermediate residential, which is compatible with the requested LDR3 zoning. Commissioner Kempton asked whether the property was within the city’s impact zone. Administrator Parkinson confirmed the property lies within the impact zone and is not currently within city limits. Annexation would require contiguity with existing city boundaries, which is not currently present. The developer is exploring options to work with neighboring property owners to facilitate annexation. Commissioner Francis asked about the potential increase in housing units resulting from the zoning change. Administrator Parkinson explained that the property currently supports approximately eight lots. Under LDR3 zoning, the 11 acre site could potentially accommodate up to 110 units, assuming no land is dedicated for roads or rights-of-way. Deductions for infrastructure would reduce the final unit count. Commissioner Francis asked whether projects in the impact zone must be annexed to access city utilities. Administrator Parkinson clarified that developers outside city limits may still use city utilities but must pay higher rates due to the lack of city tax contributions. These elevated rates apply until the property is annexed into the city. Vice Chairperson Kempton opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:53 pm. In Favor: Mack Shirley addressed the Commission regarding the proposed development on property formerly held by the Shirley Irrevocable Family Trust. Mr. Shirley stated that his family was the seller of the property and is well-informed about the proposed project. He expressed support for the proposal, citing several reasons. First, he noted that the project meets the housing demands of a growing community, referencing previous meetings where the need for additional housing was frequently discussed. Second, he stated that the development would enhance the aesthetic appeal of the corridor extending from the temple to the subject property. Mr. Shirley shared that the builder plans to construct high-quality townhomes that will contribute positively to the area’s appearance. Third, he emphasized that the application is consistent with previously approved developments, suggesting that there is precedent for this type of project. He also noted that approval of the project has already increased property values in the surrounding neighborhood, and that residents should recognize the financial benefit of the development. Lastly, Mr. Shirley stated that the proposal aligns with the city’s long-range planning goals, particularly the anticipated extension of 5th West to Moody Road. He believes the project complements ongoing development efforts and supports the city's vision for future infrastructure and community growth. Mr. Shirley concluded his remarks by affirming his support for the proposal and thanking the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Neutral: none Opposed: Darla Wilson, a resident whose property is located directly across the road on Moody, addressed the Commission to express concerns regarding the proposed development. She noted that the property in question had previously been platted for single-family dwellings, which she felt was more consistent with the expectations of long-time residents in the area. Ms. Wilson expressed concern about the increased traffic that would result from extending Fifth West and introducing townhouses into the area. She stated that such development would significantly increase traffic volume, particularly along roads that already experience heavy use by agricultural machinery. She emphasized that large farm equipment, including combines with wide headers and cattle trucks, frequently travel along this corridor, and additional residential traffic could create safety and congestion issues. She also raised concerns about parking, noting that if the development does not provide adequate parking, vehicles may end up parked along the busy road. This could interfere with the movement of large farm equipment, which often requires the full width of the road and forces other vehicles into the gutter to pass safely. Ms. Wilson stated that while she does not oppose development in general, she is concerned about the density and traffic impacts of this particular proposal. She emphasized the importance of maintaining the rural character of the area, which currently supports significant farming and ranching activity. She concluded by expressing a desire to keep the community simple and safe, and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Neil Call addressed the Commission regarding the proposed development adjacent to his property. Mr. Call stated that he owns five acres immediately east of the proposed site and has held the property for approximately 50 years. He expressed concern about a boundary discrepancy discovered during a recent survey. Mr. Call explained that a fence line had served as the agreed-upon boundary for decades, but the new survey revealed a 15-foot encroachment into his property. He consulted with legal counsel, who confirmed that Idaho law recognizes “boundary by agreement,” and that the long-standing fence line should be considered the legal boundary. This applies to both the east and north sides of his property, including the area along the canal. Mr. Call also raised concerns about the impact of the proposed development on infrastructure and neighboring properties. Specifically, he asked whether a privacy fence would be installed between his property and the development, and whether a berm would be constructed on his side to accommodate flood irrigation. He noted that both he and surrounding neighbors use flood irrigation, and warned that any homes built with basements could be at risk of flooding. While Mr. Call did not explicitly oppose development, he expressed strong reservations about the scale of the project, particularly the addition of 50 homes adjacent to his property. He concluded by stating that this level of density is his primary concern and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Alan Call raised a question regarding how discrepancies between survey lines and existing fence lines are handled. Administrator Parkinson clarified that disputes involving fence lines and property boundaries are considered private matters between property owners and developers. The Planning Department does not intervene in such disputes but ensures that submitted surveys meet legal requirements. If a property line dispute arises, it must be resolved privately and is not under the jurisdiction of Planning & Zoning. Mr. Call asked about the zoning designation LDR3 and what types of housing are permitted. Administrator Parkinson responded that LDR3 zoning allows for single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes. The maximum density permitted under LDR3 is ten dwelling units per acre. Vice Chairperson Kempton reminded the Commission that the current discussion pertains solely to the zone change request and does not include any review or approval of specific development projects. It was noted that Planning & Zoning does not evaluate project details at this stage because the zone change, if approved, could allow for future ownership or development changes. Therefore, any project concepts presented during the meeting are not guaranteed to be implemented. He emphasized that their responsibility is to consider the maximum potential impact allowed under the proposed zoning designation. This includes evaluating the types and scale of development that could occur under the new zoning, rather than focusing on any specific plans that may have been informally discussed. Written Correspondence: none Rebuttal: none Vice Chairperson Kempton closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:06 pm. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Geddes raised concerns about the impact of increased residential development on the existing road infrastructure. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the developer will be required to meet city street standards along their frontage, including dedicating the full right-of-way width. This road is classified as a minor arterial due to the potential future highway overpass, and will eventually need to accommodate higher traffic volumes. Improvements will include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscape strip. Parking was also discussed. Administrator Parkinson clarified that all parking must be accommodated on the developer’s property. While parking may be allowed on public roads if designated, roads marked as “no parking,” such as 2nd East, will prohibit on-street parking. These standards will be addressed in the development agreement between the city and the developer. Commissioner Geddes questioned the difference between county and city road standards. Administrator Parkinson explained that county roads typically have a 30-foot base, while city roads are generally 44 feet wide for two lanes. In this case, the future road could be up to 100 feet wide to accommodate five lanes, including turn lanes and sidewalks, depending on final classification. Concerns were also expressed about potential conflicts between farming operations and residential traffic. Administrator Parkinson noted that as development progresses, farming equipment will need to adjust, such as transporting headers via trailers, similar to practices on other developed roads. Flood irrigation was another topic of concern. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the developer is aware of existing flood irrigation in the area and will take necessary precautions during construction to prevent flooding of residential lots. Commissioner Geddes asked whether there are other examples of LDR3 zoning on similarly sized parcels. Administrator Parkinson referenced a comparable area near Karchner’s property, which is zoned LDR3 but currently developed with single-family homes at a lower density. He also noted that the city recently increased the allowable density in LDR3 zones from 8 units per acre to 10 units per acre. Commissioner Richards clarified that each developer is responsible for widening the road along their own frontage. Over time, as adjacent parcels are developed, the entire roadway will be widened incrementally. Administrator Parkinson emphasized that while the full right-of-way may be dedicated upfront, only a portion of the road may be constructed initially, depending on traffic demand. This approach was previously used on 7th South near Harvest Heights. Commissioner Lawrence discussed the proposed zoning density and noted that higher densities have previously been approved in the surrounding area. It was observed that the proposed development represents a lower density than what has already been approved nearby, and that the location—adjacent to a highway corridor—is appropriate for higher-density housing rather than large single-family lots. Commissioner Smith agreed that the comprehensive plan designates this area for intermediate housing, and that future development will likely follow this designation. It was noted that the proposed project aligns well with the surrounding zoning transitions and anticipated growth patterns. Regarding sewer infrastructure, Administrator Parkinson reported that the city is currently working with landowners to secure necessary rights-of-way. Most of the agreements are in place, and the project is expected to go out to bid soon. The goal is to begin construction in the fall, when groundwater levels are lower, reducing the need for dewatering. The lift station for the area will be approximately 26 to 30 feet deep, requiring significant pumping capacity. Commissioner Geddes asked whether increased density would impact the capacity of the city’s wastewater treatment plant. Administrator Parkinson responded that the city has already developed a comprehensive sewer plan and is currently upgrading the plant to meet both current and future needs. Attorney Rammell emphasized that infrastructure concerns, such as sewer and road capacity, are addressed through the development agreement process. He noted that the Public Works Director, Keith, thoroughly reviews each project to ensure that city infrastructure can support the proposed development. He acknowledged that while these technical issues are not the direct responsibility of the Planning & Zoning Commission, they are rigorously evaluated by city staff during the approval process. Administrator Parkinson also confirmed that infrastructure impacts are considered during zoning changes, and that findings are included in the Staff Report provided to the Commission. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Moody Road Townhomes rezone from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) based on its ability to fit within staff parameters, that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and has been extensively looked at. Action: Approve, Moved by McKay Francis, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: none VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, McKay Francis, Dan Hanna, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: none CORRECTED MOTION: Motion to recommend County Commissioners approve the Moody Road Townhomes rezone from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) based on its ability to fit within staff parameters, that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and has been extensively looked at. November 5, 2025, The application was presented to the City Council and considered first read. November 19, 2025, The application was presented to the City Council and considered second read. December 3, 2025, The application was presented to the City Council for a third and final read.