Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 25-01288 - Diaz (Birch Property) - Approx 301 S 12th W - Comp Plan change fr LR to IR(208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Reason for Decision 25-01288 – Diaz (Birch Property) - Approx 301 S 12th W - Comp Plan change fr LR to IR 1. November 26, 2025, An application was created for Marco Diaz to change the Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Residential to Intermediate Residential for half of a parcel. 2. December 15, 2025, Payment was received for the application. 3. November 26, 2025, Staff reviews were assigned. 4. December 3, 2025, Staff reviews were approved. 5. December 8, 2025, Staff Report was completed. 6. November 26, 2025, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published December 2, 2025, and December 9, 2025. 7. December 1, 2025, Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners. 8. December 8, 2025, Notice was posted on the property. 9. December 16, 2025, the application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Public Hearing – (25-01288) Diaz (Birch Property) - Comp Plan change from LR to IR– Located at approximately 301 S 12th W, the application is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Residential to Intermediate Residential. – Marco Diaz (Action) Conflict of Interest/Ex parte Conversation: Chairperson Lawrence asked the Commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest or conversations held outside of this meeting relative to this particular subject. Presentation: Administrator Parkinson introduced the application, sharing the location of the property on 12th W, behind the recently approved charter school. He explained that the applicant has requested to change the zone of half of the parcel, approximately 6.5 acres, to a zone that is not allowed in the current Low Residential Comprehensive Plan Map designation. This request has prompted the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to Intermediate Residential to support the requested zone. The applicant, Marco Diaz, explained that the property is currently split zoned between LDR1 and LDR2, which is unusual. The proposed amendment would allow for LDR3 zoning to accommodate townhomes adjacent to the freeway, with a transition to single- family homes further south. The applicant stated that higher density near the freeway is (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org more marketable due to noise concerns and would support affordable housing options. The proposed density is 10 units per acre, or approximately 60 units. Administrator Parkinson stated that the Intermediate Residential designation allows for LDR3, MDR1 and MDR2 zones. The next item on the agenda is requesting a LDR3 zone for this same area. He confirmed that staff have reviewed the application and it met all requirements. Commissioner Lawrence inquired about how many parcels were involved in the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request. Administrator Parkinson confirmed the property in question is a single parcel that is split into two zones. Commissioner Muir asked if this would be restricted to townhomes. Commissioner Kempton advised the Commission that when changing the Comprehensive Plan Map designation, any zone allowed in that designation could be requested. He reminded the Commissioners that the current developer could sell the property, and the next owner could request a higher zone that is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation. Commissioner Hanna discussed adjacent properties designations and densities. Administrator Parkinson described the Comprehensive Plan as being a vision for the city, giving the Planning & Zoning Commission the authority to update it as needed or requested. He explained that it was reviewed and updated in 2023. Commissioner Hanna deliberated if allowing this change would create more changes in the future. Commissioner Thackeray inquired why the Intermediate Residential section stopped abruptly on the map. Commissioner Geddes confirmed that during the Comprehensive Plan review and update, the neighborhood insisted on a step down approach from large rural lots to Low Density Residential to avoid abrupt changes in density. Administrator Parkinson emphasized that even if the Intermediate Residential designation was approved, future zone changes would come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He asked the commission why they would or would not approve the request. He pointed out that there is MDR and HDR across the highway, bordering the property, and the LDR3 in the Intermediate Residential is a step down from that. Commissioner Hanna commented this decision could potentially open the door for others to request the same. Commissioner Thackeray countered that others already have that ability. Commissioner Hanna reasoned that the Intermediate Residential request looks consistent with the vision map. Administrator Parkinson reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan is not locked in, that changes can be made as the Commission considers what is best for the city and what they see coming, as long as they have a solid reason for their decision, no matter if it is approval or denial. Commissioner Thackeray noted that while there are some who are passionate about the change, when looking at it holistically, only traffic issues cause reservations. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Attorney Rammell educated the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide zoning decisions, not regulate parcels. According to Idaho statute, with any amendment to Comprehensive Plan, adverse impacts on the delivery of services may be discussed. He further explained that the applicants meet with the Ready Team, which includes Planning & Zoning, Public Works, Fire, Building, and Legal, to discuss limitations and challenges prior to submitting their application. Staff, including Fire and Public Works, then reviews the plans to ensure it aligns with city requirements. These meetings and reviews happen prior to the application coming before the Commission. Commissioner Hanna discussed using the Comprehensive Plan as a visionary tool to direct growth, whether it should be viewed holistically as a big picture, or zoomed in on individual parcels, if the view has the potential to affect other parcels, and if Comprehensive Plan Map amendments go against the vision. Attorney Rammell acknowledged that by nature, any Comprehensive Plan Amendment goes against it because it’s an amendment to the document, but viewing it holistically and using reason and a factual basis, they can be approved or denied. Commissioner Hanna questioned if this was a radical change or consistent with good planning. Attorney Rammell suggested that the definition of radical was subjective. Chairperson Lawrence opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:06 pm. Favor: Greg Newkirk, residing at 975 Westwood Drive in Rexburg, spoke in favor of the proposed change. He stated that the city’s comprehensive plan has two components: broad goals and specific zoning designations. He noted that the city is currently out of balance, with an abundance of single-family zoning and an inadequate amount of higher-density housing such as duplexes and townhomes. Mr. Newkirk emphasized that future growth would require more diverse housing options and that the comprehensive plan anticipates this need. He explained that the location under consideration is close to downtown and along 12th West, which he believes will eventually become a major five- lane roadway. He argued that density will naturally increase in this area and that it is better to address these issues now rather than later. Delaying action, he said, results in piecemeal decisions and create greater challenges over time. While acknowledging that some residents prefer single-family housing, he stressed that multifamily development is a necessary reality for the city’s future. Mr. Newkirk concluded by encouraging the Commission to move forward with the proposal, stating that the site is well suited for the change and meets key planning objectives. Neutral: none Opposed: John Paul Johnson, residing at 2412 West 880 South, spoke in opposition to the proposed change. He expressed significant concern about traffic impacts, referencing a traffic study presented by Public Works during the September 17 meeting regarding the GEM Prep Charter School located adjacent to the subject property. The study projected that traffic levels of service on 12th West would decline to levels D and E by 2030 with the addition of the school. Mr. Johnson argued that introducing higher-density development would further exacerbate congestion, especially since 12th West is not (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org expected to become a five lane road for many years. He emphasized that the current infrastructure cannot support additional density in the near term. Mr. Johnson also noted that the property lies west of the highway, where connectivity to downtown is limited. He stated that the highway acts as a physical barrier, making access more difficult compared to areas east of the highway. Finally, he questioned the fairness of changing the comprehensive plan based on a single property owner’s request, given that the plan was developed with extensive public input. He urged the Commission to respect the community’s vision expressed during the comprehensive planning process and not disregard public opinion for individual interests. Commissioner Lawrence explained to the Commissioners that level of service F is gridlock and A is free flowing. Brent Harris, residing at 1125 Widdison Lane in Rexburg, spoke against the proposed change. He stated that LDR3 should not be classified as Intermediate Residential in the comprehensive plan because it is considered low density. He recommended correcting this inconsistency before allowing any changes that would permit intermediate or medium density development in areas currently designated for low density. Mr. Harris expressed concern that approving this request would set a precedent for adjacent properties, such as the Steiner family land to the north, which could then seek similar changes and potentially introduce medium density development along the freeway. He emphasized that the west side of the highway is different from the east side and that the city has limited low-density residential areas remaining, as apartments and high density housing are becoming more prevalent. He also noted that the comprehensive plan was created to prevent piecemeal development and should be followed as closely as possible. While acknowledging that the plan is a guideline, he urged the Commission to maintain its integrity and avoid incremental changes that undermine its purpose. Mr. Harris concluded by recommending that the city correct the classification issue and keep the area designated for low density residential rather than changing it to intermediate or medium density. Wanless Southwick, residing at 375 South 12th West, spoke in opposition to the proposed change. He stated that he owns property adjacent to the subject parcel and expressed concern about approving the amendment without a broader development plan for the area. Mr. Southwick noted that the surrounding land currently appears as vacant agricultural property but will eventually develop, and multiple owners are involved. He emphasized the need for a comprehensive vision rather than piecemeal changes. He warned that adding higher density housing would significantly impact traffic on 12th West, which already lacks adequate east west connectivity. He stressed that the rural residential character of the neighborhood is highly valued by residents and should be preserved. Mr. Southwick argued that the proposed development primarily benefits the developer financially and that people will still purchase property near the freeway, even if discounted, without requiring high-density zoning. He concluded by stating that increased congestion and loss of rural character are unacceptable outcomes for the community. David Higginson, residing at 1120 Green Willow Drive, spoke against the proposed change. He expressed concern about cumulative traffic impacts on 12th West, noting (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org that several major projects are either approved or anticipated in the area. These include a potential school district facility near the high school, ongoing condominium development in Summerfield, the recently approved GEM Prep Charter School (which could add 300–600 vehicle trips daily), and a large condominium project planned for property near Main Street and 12th West. Mr. Higginson emphasized that these developments will significantly increase traffic volumes and strain existing infrastructure. He urged the Commission to consider the broader picture rather than approving changes on a parcel-by-parcel basis. He stated that the comprehensive plan was created with extensive public input and should be respected to avoid radical changes that could negatively affect the community. Mr. Higginson recommended moving forward cautiously and in smaller steps to maintain consistency with the plan and prevent future congestion and neighborhood disruption. Kathy Parson, residing at 298 South 12th West, spoke in opposition to the proposed change. She stated that she and her husband have lived at their property for 43 years and have witnessed significant increases in traffic over time. Mrs. Parson expressed strong concern that approving the amendment would lead to even greater traffic congestion and voted “absolutely no” to changing the designation to allow higher density. She compared the proposal to “letting the camel’s nose in the tent,” suggesting that it could lead to further incremental changes. While acknowledging that she does not fully understand the comprehensive plan yet, she indicated her intent to study it further. She concluded by reiterating that traffic in the area is already excessive and that additional development would worsen the problem. Mike Evans, residing at 2195 West 440 South, spoke against the proposed change. He stated that growth and development do not “just happen” but occur through approvals, and the Commission has the authority to shape what is best for Rexburg. Mr. Evans expressed concern that approving higher density zoning would negatively impact the city’s visual appeal, particularly along Highway 20, where visitors entering Rexburg would see dense development rather than the community’s current open and attractive character. He argued that property near the freeway will still sell, even if prices must be reduced, and that decisions should not be based on financial considerations for developers. Instead, they should reflect the city’s long term vision and commitment to maintaining its beauty and quality of life. Mr. Evans concluded by urging the Commission to preserve Rexburg’s character and avoid changes that would compromise its appeal. Charlene Evans, residing at 2195 West 440 South, spoke in opposition to the proposed change. She stated that she agrees with previous comments made by other residents and expressed concern about the inconsistency in development standards. Mrs. Evans noted that a recent proposal on her street to create eight one acre lots was denied because the developer could not provide access to Highway 33. She questioned why a project proposing significantly more homes would now be considered acceptable. She urged the Commission to reflect on whether decisions are being made to benefit developers financially or to maintain a well planned community. Mrs. Evans emphasized the importance of creating a city that prioritizes long term residents who will pay taxes and send their children to local schools for many years, rather than approving changes that could lead to transient populations. She concluded by asking the Commission to consider the broader impact on the community before approving the request. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Doug Thompson, residing at 1053 Widdison Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed change. He stated that his views aligned with previous comments made by other residents and expressed concern about maintaining the integrity of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Thompson noted that traffic congestion is already challenging in the area, particularly at the diamond interchange, and additional development would worsen these conditions. He emphasized the importance of preserving Rexburg’s identity as a “family community,” referencing the city’s signage and vision. Mr. Thompson urged the Commission to uphold the comprehensive plan to maintain the character and quality of life in the neighborhood, rather than approving changes that could lead to increased density and congestion. Leon Parson, residing at 298 South 12th West, spoke in opposition to the proposed change. He expressed concern about the long term impact of increased density and urged the Commission to consider the “big picture” rather than focusing on a single parcel. Mr. Parson noted that he and his family have lived in the area for 43 years and have already experienced property impacts from previous road widening projects, including the loss of yard space and irrigation access. He warned that future expansions of 12th West to accommodate traffic could require additional right-of-way, further reducing private property and altering the neighborhood’s character. Mr. Parson emphasized that traffic congestion is already a significant issue and suggested that the city prioritize opening 7th South or other east-west connections before approving higher density development. He concluded by urging the Commission to avoid incremental changes that create larger problems and to maintain a comprehensive approach to planning. Mike Evans, residing at 2195 West 440 South, added a final comment regarding traffic concerns. He stated that while the diamond interchanges have been helpful, they are already congested during peak times. Mr. Evans noted that his wife’s commute from their home to McDonald’s, approximately one mile, takes more than ten minutes each morning due to traffic delays. He warned that additional development and increased traffic would make these interchanges even more crowded, further impacting travel times and overall traffic flow. Written Correspondence: All who had written also spoke in person Rebuttal: Marco Diaz thanked the Commission and the public for their comments and acknowledged that growth is never easy. He addressed traffic concerns first, explaining that he has met with the city and Public Works Director Keith Davidson multiple times. Mr. Diaz stated that developers are required to mitigate traffic impacts by widening roads and making improvements identified in traffic studies to maintain or improve the level of service. He emphasized that his goal is to solve problems, not create them, and assured the Commission that any necessary road improvements will be funded by the developer, not taxpayers. He also clarified that the proposed change is not a radical departure from the comprehensive plan. The request moves from LDR2 to LDR3, which he described as a gradual step rather than a major shift to medium density. Mr. Diaz noted that his long term plan includes single family lots on additional property he is purchasing, further supporting a balanced approach to development. Addressing affordability, Mr. Diaz (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org stated that his goal is to provide quality, affordable housing for young families and first- time buyers who may otherwise be priced out of the market. He assured the Commission that the development will not resemble the Meadows, which has been criticized for poor maintenance, and emphasized that affordability does not mean inferior quality. Mr. Diaz concluded by expressing his willingness to work collaboratively with the community and the Commission to address concerns. He stated that he values dialogue and hopes to find solutions that benefit both the city and its residents. He reiterated his commitment to building responsibly and maintaining open communication throughout the process. Chairperson Lawrence closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:42 pm. Chairperson Lawrence thanked all participants for their comments. He expressed appreciation for the public’s engagement and noted that speakers adhered to the allotted time, which contributed to an orderly and productive discussion. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Kempton began the discussion by noting that he appreciated earlier comments regarding flexibility in the comprehensive plan. He stated that he wished the plan allowed for “fuzzy lines” or overlapping areas between Intermediate Residential and Low Residential, which could provide more flexibility for LDR3 zoning. He acknowledged that this is not something that can be resolved during the current meeting but felt it would help address similar issues in the future. Chairperson Lawrence then asked for clarification regarding the traffic study for the GEM Prep Charter School and whether the projected level of service was calculated with or without improvements. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the study reflected current conditions without improvements and explained that transportation studies typically identify problems and propose solutions to restore acceptable service levels. These improvements are generally required of developers as part of their project responsibilities. Commissioner Geddes asked what service level is acceptable for roads. Administrator Parkinson confirmed a C level is acceptable. Commissioner Thackeray asked whether allowing development could help generate revenue to fund road improvements more quickly, noting that leaving the area as low- density might limit resources for infrastructure upgrades. Administrator Parkinson responded that without growth, the city lacks sufficient funds to maintain or expand roads. Developers are required to pay for improvements along their frontage and contribute to infrastructure costs, which helps offset expenses and supports better road conditions. The future widening of 12th West to a five-lane roadway was also discussed. Administrator Parkinson explained that while improvements will occur incrementally as development progresses, the city does not currently have the funds to complete the entire project at once. If traffic mitigation measures identified in transportation studies are insufficient, the city will need to seek grants or other funding sources to finish the work. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Chairperson Lawrence redirected the discussion to the comprehensive plan, stating that he anticipates development along the highway eventually but questioned whether now is the right time to make this change. Commissioner Kempton agreed that traffic concerns can be managed by the city and developers but emphasized that changing the comprehensive plan should meet a high standard. Commissioner Kempton acknowledged that the request makes sense in terms of location and gradual density transition but stressed the importance of respecting recent planning efforts. Commissioner Thackeray added that the proposed change would increase density on the six acre parcel by approximately 40 units and argued that this expansion could help provide housing for young families who are currently priced out of the area. He shared that many of his own family members have moved away due to affordability issues and sees this development as a way to address that challenge. Administrator Parkinson clarified that while developers contribute to road improvements, the city remains responsible for additional infrastructure costs beyond those requirements. Commissioners continued to weigh the balance between maintaining the integrity of the comprehensive plan and addressing housing needs and future growth. Commissioner Hanna summarized three key issues: traffic concerns, infrastructure funding, and the role of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He noted that development and growth are necessary to fund infrastructure improvements and that Rexburg has historically shifted many of these costs to developers, reducing the burden on property owners and taxpayers. He then asked for clarification on the Commission’s role in the process. Administrator Parkinson explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission serves as a recommending body to the City Council. The Commission reviews testimony, evaluates compliance with city code and the comprehensive plan, and considers citywide impacts before making a recommendation to approve or deny. The City Council, as the elected governing body, makes the final decision and enacts changes into law. Administrator Parkinson emphasized that decisions must be based on valid, defensible reasons. For example, traffic concerns cannot be used to deny a proposal if mitigation measures can maintain acceptable service levels. Commissioners were reminded that their responsibility is to weigh all factors and provide recommendations supported by clear, factual reasoning. Commissioner Francis asked staff to clarify what is meant when Administrator Parkinson indicates that a project has received the “green light” from the city. Administrator Parkinson explained that before an application reaches the Commission, the applicant meets with the city’s Ready Team, which includes department heads from Public Works, Planning, Building, Legal, and other relevant divisions. During these meetings, staff identify challenges, requirements, and necessary adjustments to ensure compliance with city codes and standards. Applicants often revise their plans multiple times before submitting a formal application. Once submitted, the application undergoes detailed review by GIS, Public Works, Planning & Zoning, Building, and Legal to confirm compliance with city, state, and national codes. If all (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org requirements are met, staff forwards the application to the Commission with a recommendation, leaving the final decision to the Commission and City Council. Commissioner Francis noted that, based on his experience, Rexburg requires extensive front end engineering and traffic analysis, which demonstrates the city’s commitment to thorough review. He added that, in his opinion, the proposed change makes sense as a continuation of development patterns south of the property, providing a logical transition from the highway to residential areas. Administrator Parkinson also noted that since the adoption of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan, five amendments have been approved, indicating that changes do occur when justified. Commissioners discussed the challenge of planning for a corridor surrounded by undeveloped land and emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear vision for future growth. Administrator Parkinson explained that previous “fuzzy” boundaries in the plan were eliminated to avoid inconsistencies and that future growth west of the freeway will be significant, requiring improvements to 12th West and other infrastructure. He also reported that a grant application for new highway crossings was denied, but efforts continue to identify solutions for traffic flow and connectivity. Commissioners acknowledged that these infrastructure challenges are related to the broader discussion of growth and connectivity. They reiterated the need to focus on the comprehensive plan and noted that any zoning changes approved would still require additional review and compliance with city standards. Administrator Parkinson emphasized that the Commission has the authority to approve or deny the proposed changes and that final zoning decisions will follow this process. Commissioner Geddes expressed concerns about increasing density near the highway and questioned how higher density zoning benefits the city when it adds more traffic and demand on utilities. She noted that the Meadows development was annexed into the city without adequate planning for growth and connectivity, and emphasized that the area currently has only one access point via 12th West. She stated that without additional frontage roads or east-west connections, evacuation and traffic flow could become problematic. Commissioner Geddes also raised questions about whether approving this request could lead to future proposals for even higher densities, such as MDR zoning, and stated her preference for maintaining LDR1 and LDR2 zoning as outlined in the current plan. She expressed concern about approving changes based on one developer’s plans, noting that previous attempts to rezone the Birch property were denied until a step down approach was adopted. Administrator Parkinson responded by explaining that developers pay impact fees and are responsible for road improvements and utility connections, which help offset infrastructure costs. He further clarified that higher-density developments generate more tax revenue because they do not qualify for homeowner exemptions and also increase sales tax based on population. This additional revenue helps fund city services and infrastructure improvements. He noted that lower density areas often cost the city more to maintain due to limited tax base spread over large areas. Commissioner Geddes acknowledged the explanation but reiterated her concerns about connectivity, emergency access, and the long-term implications of allowing higher density adjacent to the freeway. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Commissioner Geddes noted that community stability is an important consideration, citing a recent report showing a 70% turnover rate in the area. She suggested that the lack of available homes for purchase may contribute to this turnover and emphasized the need for housing options that encourage long term residency. However, she expressed concern that approving medium density zoning could lead to incremental changes beyond what is currently proposed and stated her preference for maintaining the existing step down approach outlined in the comprehensive plan. Chairperson Lawrence responded that ingress and egress requirements, as well as emergency access, would be reviewed by Public Works and the Fire Department during development to ensure adequate traffic flow and safety. Commissioner Hanna stated his support for the proposal. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the change in the Comprehensive Plan from Low Residential to Intermediate Residential because it is not a radical change, it is consistent with the neighborhood, provides a buffer to other developments, and provides a good product for those who want to live and invest in Rexburg. Action: Approve, Moved by Dan Hanna, Seconded by Brian Thackeray. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 5, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: Jim Lawrence, McKay Francis, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Dan Hanna, No: Tammy Geddes, Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Abstain: none 10. December 17, 2025, the application was presented to the City Council. Planning & Zoning Recommendation to approve a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Low Residential (LR) to Intermediate Residential (IR) at approximately 301 S 12th W (25-01288). Designated as Resolution No 2025 – 14 if the motion passes – Alan Parkinson Action Item P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the applicant approached the city to request a zone change; however, the zone being requested requires a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the desired density. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reviewed the subject parcel on the map below. The property was identified as the Birch property, where Gem Prep School is planning to locate. The request applied to approximately six and one-half acres of property, which is proposed to be changed from low residential to intermediate residential zoning. That request was forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. He stated that the City Council has likely reviewed the minutes from the Planning and Zoning meeting held the previous night. Many of the same issues were discussed before, as the property (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org has come before the City Council multiple times. He clarified that this is the fourth time the property has been considered for a zone change. Council Member Resser questioned why the higher density zone designation appeared to stop at the subject property. He asked whether there had been any discussion during the Comprehensive Plan process about why the designation stopped at that location, especially since density appeared to continue south of the property. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that, at one time, the intermediate residential designation had extended all the way to Widdison Subdivision. During the Comprehensive Plan meetings, however, discussions led to a different outcome, as many participants felt that the zone designation did not fit the (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org area at that time. As a result, the boundary was pulled back. He explained that the area had previously been designated that way but had since been changed. Council Member Resser asked whether the concern had been that density should decrease closer to Main Street. P&Z Administrator Parkinson replied that the intent had been to protect the existing neighborhoods, noting that the Widdison Subdivision consisted primarily of one-acre lots and that nearby areas also included one-acre parcels. P&Z Administrator Parkinson said, when reviewing the map, the area now included a school, LDR-2 zoning behind it, and increasing densities overall. P&Z Administrator Parkinson also noted that Summerfield Subdivison, located across the road, already included LDR-3 and LDR-2 zoning and followed a similar development pattern. They explained that higher densities were typically placed adjacent to buffers, such as freeways, because single-family development near freeways was more difficult to market. He added that the Widdison Subdivision had begun development in the 1970s and had existed before Highway 20 was constructed. Council Member Johnson noted that the Comprehensive Plan had been updated only a few years earlier after extensive public input. She stated that residents had expressed a desire to keep that area low density and she feels uncomfortable changing the plan so soon after that effort. She added that the Comprehensive Plan defined intermediate residential areas as being close to services and expressed concern that the area lacked sidewalks, shoulders, and safe pedestrian infrastructure, particularly for children. Based on those conditions, she believes that the intermediate residential designation did not fit the area. City Attorney Rammell asked Council Member Johnson whether the reference to public input related to the recent meeting or to the Comprehensive Plan process itself. Council Member Johnson clarified that she was referring to the Comprehensive Plan process and reiterated that intermediate residential zoning did not fit the location. Council Member E. Erickson raised concerns about comparisons to Summerfield, noting that although parts of that area were zoned LDR-3, they did not appear to be built out at that density. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that Summerfield was a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allowed flexibility in how density was distributed while maintaining overall density limits. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that townhomes had been placed in certain areas while single-family homes were located elsewhere, all within the allowable density. Council Member E. Erickson continued to question whether a specific block of LDR-3 near Pioneer Road was truly developed at that density. P&Z Administrator Parkinson reiterated that the zoning and PUD had been approved together and allowed density to be shifted to accommodate open space and amenities, provided the overall density remained compliant. He stated that any future changes would require returning to the City Council for approval. Council Member Johnson added that, based on her experience living in Summerfield, there were only two sections of townhomes and that the remainder of the development consisted of unattached housing. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that the townhomes had been built and sold several years earlier and that current sales involved unattached homes. Council Member Johnson emphasized that point to ensure residents understood the type of housing being developed. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council Member C. Erickson stated that the city had spent several years developing the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Comprehensive Plans are difficult for cities to complete and emphasized that the plan is intended to guide future growth while preserving the community’s character. He stated that the subject property had been considered multiple times and adjusted to LDR-2, which had been widely accepted. He expressed discomfort with changing the Comprehensive Plan again, especially after extensive public involvement, and stated that sufficient higher-density areas already existed within the city. He said that the Comprehensive Plan should remain unchanged unless new data or compelling information justified a revision. Mayor Merrill clarified the amount of land designated as LDR-1 compared to LDR-3. The city has a large amount of LDR-1 and LDR-2 land within the city limits and the impact area. He recalled staff previously stating that there were thousands of acres designated at those lower densities. He acknowledged the significant effort that had gone into developing the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a living document and not something permanently fixed without reevaluation. They stated that the city needed to continually assess its housing needs. He referenced comments made by Mr. Newkirk and others regarding the need for more diverse housing options, including what is often referred to as the “missing middle.” He said some Planning and Zoning Commissioners had shared experiences of their children being unable to live in the city due to a lack of affordable housing. He expressed agreement that while single-family homes were selling well, townhomes would likely sell just as well. Mayor Merrill explained stated that many objections to higher-density housing seemed to focus on quality of life, particularly traffic. He argued that single-family housing typically generated more traffic than townhomes or multifamily housing. He emphasized that single-family households often included multiple drivers, including teenagers, resulting in frequent daily trips. By contrast, townhomes were often occupied by older residents or smaller households with fewer vehicle trips. Council Member Johnson responded by noting that these examples were anecdotal and emphasized the importance of relying on formal traffic studies rather than personal observations. Council Member Johnson referenced a city-conducted traffic study related to the Gem Prep School, which indicated that some intersections would operate at level-of-service D or E without improvements. She stated that she has not heard what mitigation actions were planned as development increased. She shared personal experiences of traffic congestion after school dismissal and expressed concern that the area has limited access routes. She also noted that the city did not receive grant funding for proposed overpasses study. The overpasses would have improved connectivity to the east side of the city. She emphasized the need for a timeline to address infrastructure issues before approving additional density. Mayor Merrill explained that intersections typically needed to reach levels of service D, E, or even F before qualifying for certain state and federal transportation grants. He stated that while this is unfortunate, funding is limited and prioritized for areas demonstrating the greatest need. He suggested that staff provide an update on discussions with the Idaho Transportation Department regarding the key intersection. He acknowledged that overpasses would not be built in the near term but emphasized that they remained part of the city’s long-term transportation plan. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council Member C. Erickson said many of the topics discussed at the Planning and Zoning, such as comparisons to other developments and family demographics, were not directly relevant. He emphasized that the decision before the City Council is whether the proposed change meets the Comprehensive Plan’s criteria for increasing density to LDR-3. He stated that the area did not meet the plan’s standards for walkability, safety, or multimodal transportation, particularly given its proximity to the freeway and lack of pedestrian infrastructure. He concluded that the proposal did not align with the future growth vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and stated that they did not support changing the plan at that time. Mayor Merrill responded by questioning how infrastructure improvements could ever be achieved if developers willing to invest were consistently denied. He noted that the property has come forward multiple times for development using only single-family housing but that developers have been unable to make those projects financially viable due to the cost of infrastructure improvements. He added that this financial reality is one of the reasons the property continued to change hands and returned for reconsideration. City Attorney Rammell asked to clarify the record, he referenced a recent comment made by Council Member C. Erickson regarding remarks from the previous Planning and Zoning meeting that may have seemed relevant. He explained that discussions surrounding Comprehensive Plan amendments often required a broader scope than typical zone change discussions. He noted that comprehensive plans were evaluated against a wide range of factors, including consistency with planned goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan process involved consideration of seventeen different factors and is intentionally broad in scope. For that reason, He explained that they generally allowed more flexibility in discussion during Comprehensive Plan reviews and did not believe the comments made at the prior meeting were inappropriate. City Attorney Rammell asked a clarifying question regarding references to the time invested in developing the comprehensive plan. He asked whether this referred merely to the resources and effort expended, or to the actual goals, objectives, trends, and desired future conditions that resulted from the process. He emphasized the importance of clarifying this distinction for fairness to both the public and the applicant. Council Member C. Erickson responded that they were referring to the goals, trends, desired future conditions, and existing conditions identified throughout the entire city during the comprehensive planning process. Council Member C. Erickson stated that their concern was rooted in those outcomes rather than simply the amount of time or resources invested. City Attorney Rammell explained that he asked the question to ensure the position is not based solely on sunk costs or effort, but rather on the substance of the plan itself. Council Member Riggins stated that he saw three major issues. First, he explained that after reviewing the minutes from the prior night’s meeting, he observed that the Planning and Zoning Commissioners themselves raised numerous questions. He noted that the commissioners emphasized that changes to the comprehensive plan should meet a high standard and repeatedly discussed the need to balance maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan with addressing housing needs. He further noted that the commissioners emphasized that any zone changes would still require additional review and compliance with city standards. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council Member Riggins said the second issue based on his review; the proposal does not conform to the city’s Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the current low residential designation provided for certain transitions and standards, and he concluded that the request did not meet the criteria for approval. He stated that the proposal also failed to meet city standards related to the capacity of existing public streets and other required considerations, indicating that the city’s own approval standards were not being met. Council Member Riggins said the third issue is he believes the City Council is not adequately listening to one another or to the residents who would be directly affected by the decision. He emphasized the importance of considering public input from those living in the area. He referenced an email sent to P&Z Administrator Parkinson, noting that the writer acknowledged it might be time to assess development options for agricultural fields on the east side of South 12th West Street. He stated that the email suggested a coordinated plan that respected the rural residential character of the neighborhood while also improving traffic options. He referenced an email sent to P&Z Administrator Parkinson from Wanless Southwick. Council Member Riggins expressed uncertainty about whether the P&Z Commissioners fully understood the proposal and stated that, from his perspective, if he lived in the area, he would want to see visual representations showing how the development and roadway improvements would function. He suggested that the parties work through the issues and develop a plan that addresses those concerns before returning to the City Council for consideration. City Attorney Rammell clarified the record to ensure fairness to the applicant. He explained that, in land use cases involving Comprehensive Plan amendments or zone changes, applicants are specifically prohibited from providing detailed site plans or visual depictions. He stated that such designations attached to the land rather than the applicant, and that ownership could change after approval. For that reason, decisions could not be based on specific development concepts or illustrations. He emphasized that this process was not tied to a specific project design. Council Member E. Erickson explained that additional Comprehensive Plan changes are likely to come before the City Council soon. He emphasized that the city needs to be able to amend the Comprehensive Plan when necessary to guide development in appropriate areas. He noted that the subject property is bordered by RR-2 zoning to the north and RR-2 zoning to the south. He stated that whatever decision is made for this parcel would influence how the surrounding properties will develop. Council Member E. Erickson posed the question of whether the City Council wanted the entire area to develop into townhomes or into more detached, single-family dwellings. At the Planning and Zoning meeting an idea discussed briefly involved rezoning the entire property to LDR-2 instead of a combination of LDR-1 and LDR-3. He explained that this approach would allow for duplexes and twin homes while still being primarily composed of single-family dwellings on smaller lots. He expressed that this option felt more consistent with the surrounding area and raised concerns about extending townhome-style development along the entire corridor. He noted that higher-density development already existed on the opposite side of the freeway in the form of apartments. Council Member E. Erickson explained that LDR-2 provided a more appropriate buffer and that moving from LDR-2 to LDR-3 represented a significant increase in density. He stated that density would (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org increase from approximately 60–68 possible units to roughly 110 units, nearly doubling the density. He said the proposal affected approximately six and one-half acres but noted that changing the entire property to LDR-3 would increase the total unit count by roughly 40 units. He stated that this represented a substantial increase and expressed that he would feel comfortable with a zone change to LDR-2 for the entire property. Council President Walker stated that they agreed with the position that LDR-3 is out of place at that location and felt that R-2 zoning would be more consistent with the area. Council Member Reeser asked for clarification about the difference in unit counts between the proposed zone and an alternative that retained LDR-2. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the proposed LDR-2 and LDR-3 combination would allow approximately 105 to 110 units, while rezoning the property entirely to LDR-2 would result in approximately 30 fewer units, or around 80 units total. Council Member Johnson said the City Council is considering a comprehensive plan map change to intermediate residential. She explained that the intermediate residential designation included MR-1 and MR-2 zoning classifications. She emphasized that the City Council needs to evaluate the Comprehensive Plan amendment itself, not the subsequent zone change. She stated that the appropriate question is whether MR-1 and MR-2 fit within that area, noting that those zoning types could be applied if the Comprehensive Plan is amended. She expressed concern that the decision could not be based solely on the developer’s stated intent to use LDR-3, because MR-1 and MR-2 would also be permitted under the proposed Comprehensive Plan change. Council Member Johnson further stated that, based on their own research using available records and her personal experience living near townhomes, only about ten percent of the townhomes in her neighborhood were owner-occupied, with the remainder being rentals. She emphasized that townhomes were not always owner-occupied and wanted that fact to be part of the record. Mayor Merrill responded by acknowledging that townhomes are not always owner-occupied and agreed with that point. He then noted that, although the Comprehensive Plan change is being considered, any developer would still be required to come before the City Council for a zone change approval. Council Member Johnson replied that while a zone change would still be required, changing the Comprehensive Plan made it more difficult for the City Council to deny future requests. She explained that future applicants could argue that their proposals are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, making denial more challenging. Mayor Merrill agreed that the City Council needs to be thoughtful about density decisions. He added that the City Council also needs to consider the overall mix of housing within the city. He stated that the city is experiencing an affordability challenge and noted that many young people could not afford to purchase single-family homes. He explained that townhomes and similar housing types could provide an entry point into homeownership. Council Member C. Erickson moved to deny a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Low Residential (LR) to Intermediate Residential (IR) at approximately 301 S 12th W; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson none Council Member C. Erickson Council Member E. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President Walker The motion carried. Mayor Merrill said the consideration for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Low Residential (LR) to Intermediate Residential (IR) at approximately 301 S 12th W denied and sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a rehearing. City Attorney Rammell referenced the city code and explained that it is consistent with his initial understanding. He explained that the issue involved notice and public hearing requirements under city code. He cited Rexburg City Code Section 1.03.100(B), which stated that if the City Council rejected a Comprehensive Plan or zone change recommendation that originated from a Planning and Zoning public hearing, another public hearing is required. He also referenced subsection (C), which allowed the Planning and Zoning Commission to request an additional City Council hearing when needed and provided discretion to hold such a hearing. City Attorney Rammell explained that the city historically handled these situations either at the City Council level or by sending the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the latter being the more typical practice. He said that returning the matter to Planning and Zoning functioned as the required public hearing and is his legal recommendation in this case. He explained that this approach is particularly appropriate because both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the zone change are denied, which constituted a substantive deviation from the original recommendations. He emphasized that another public hearing is necessary to protect due process rights for both the applicant and members of the public. He added that it would be inappropriate to substantially alter the proposal without providing an opportunity for public input. Council Member E. Erickson asked for clarification, specifically whether denial of the Comprehensive Plan change required another public hearing on the same proposal. City Attorney Rammell explained that once notice requirements are met, the applicant could revise the application and submit a modified proposal, including a potential step-down in density, which could then be considered through the public hearing process. He added that while the City Council has discretion to hold a hearing itself, the city’s standard practice was to return the matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 11. December 18, 2025, the applicant withdrew the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application.