Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1.8.26(208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Planning and Zoning Minutes - January 8, 2026 P&Z Commissioners: City Staff: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair) Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator Sally Smith (Chairperson) Brian Thackeray Katie Jo Saurey – P&Z Administrative Assistant Aaron Richards Vern Muir Kyle Baldwin – Planner 1 Jim Lawrence Dan Hanna Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Bruce Casper Tammy Geddes Spencer Rammell – Commissioner Attorney McKay Francis Chairperson Smith opened the meeting at 6:31 PM. Planning & Zoning Meeting: 1. Welcome 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes Absent: McKay Francis, Dan Hanna 4. Approval of the P&Z Minutes for December 16, 2025 (Action) MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as corrected for December 16, 2025 (Action) Action: Approve, Moved by Jim Lawrence, Seconded by BrianThackeray. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 1). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: Sally Smith (Chairperson) Attorney Rammell stated that the meeting had a large agenda and emphasized that the three- minute speaking limit would be strictly enforced. He explained that the commission adhered to procedural safeguards outlined by the Idaho State Legislature and the Idaho Supreme Court, particularly regarding public hearings and when dialogue or questions were permitted. He reminded attendees that the meeting would adjourn at 10:00 p.m. as per protocol, and any remaining items would be tabled and continued at the next public hearing. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org PLAT 5. PLAT – (25-00737) Waterfall Townhomes – Plat – Located at 795 S 5th W, the application is to subdivide the parcel into 30 buildable lots. – Spencer McCutcheon (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: Administrator Parkinson showed the plat on the screen and its location on 5th W, between 7th S and University Blvd. He stated that Staff has reviewed it and all requirements have been met. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Geddes questioned the parking and egress. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that it meets the parking requirements and there would only be one egress onto 5th W. He confirmed that the property was zoned as Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2). Chairperson Smith remarked for the benefit of the public that plats presented to the Commission had already undergone extensive review over several months and staff have stated that all pertinent requirements had been met. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Waterfall Townhomes plat located at 795 S 5th W. Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Randall Kempton. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: none 6. PLAT – (25-00738) Parkgreen Townhomes – Plat – Located at 811 S 5th W, the application is to subdivide the parcel into 30 buildable lots. – Spencer McCutcheon (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: (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Administrator Parkinson explained this is a mirror image to prior application, with identical parking, unit count, and building layout, located on the adjacent parcel to the south. Commissioner Discussion: It was noted that the development included HOA-managed common areas and that each property would have its own separate egress. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Parkgreen Townhomes plat located at 811 S 5th W. Action: Approve, Moved by Jim Lawrence, Seconded by Brian Thackeray. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: none VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: none PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Public Hearing – (25-01158) Diaz (Birch Property) - Rezone from LDR1 to LDR2 – Located at approximately 301 S 12th W, the application is to change the zoning map from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2). – Marco Diaz 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: Administrator Parkinson explained that the request had previously come before the commission to change the eastern portion of the property from Low Residential in the Comprehensive Plan to Intermediate Residential, allowing for the zone to be changed from LDR2 to LDR3, and to change the western half from LDR1 to LDR2. The commission had approved the request and forwarded it to City Council, but the Council rejected it and returned it to the Planning & Zoning Commission for reconsideration. The applicant revised the request to withdraw the comprehensive plan change application and the request to go to LDR3, now seeking only to rezone approximately 6.5 acres on the western side of the parcel to LDR2 to match the existing adjacent zoning. Chairperson Smith inquired about the difference in density between the two zones. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Administrator Parkinson confirmed it would allow approximately 12 additional units, and the Charter School would remain in front of the property. Chairperson Smith noted that requests for this property had been presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission multiple times. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:43 pm. In Favor: none Neutral: Vince Haley, a former commissioner, addressed the commission and shared his opinion regarding traffic concerns on 12th West. He stated that he did not believe there was a traffic problem on 12th West, noting that he observed minimal traffic when driving to the meeting. However, he acknowledged that speeding was an issue and expressed frustration with the traffic lights, having to stop 4 times with each trip into Rexburg. He suggested that linking the lights through the fiber network, as previously discussed by the city and county, could improve the situation. He concluded that his comments applied to the parcel under consideration as well as other parcels on 12th West. Opposed: Brent Harris expressed concern about traffic on 12th West. He disagreed with the previous speaker’s opinion that there was no traffic problem, noting that having to wait through multiple light cycles indicated a traffic issue rather than just a signal timing problem. He stated that additional proposed developments would likely aggravate the situation. While he did not oppose the zoning change itself, he emphasized that traffic impacts needed to be considered and acknowledged that planned improvements were still far in the future. David Higginson expressed concerns about traffic on 12th West and access to the proposed development. He disagreed with earlier statements that there was no traffic problem, noting that congestion occurred during peak times such as 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. He stated that approving additional developments without addressing the underlying issue of road expansion would worsen the problem. Mr. Higginson requested clarification on how the property would be accessed, questioning whether access would be through nearby subdivisions, the Meadows, or the charter school development. He disagreed with his road, Twisted Willow, being an egress for the proposed development and recommended denying the request until a clear access plan was provided and emphasized the need for a long-term solution to traffic on 12th West. Commissioner Smith clarified that the Planning & Zoning Commission’s position was solely to change the zoning from LDR1 to LDR2 and that no development plan was under consideration at this stage. It was noted that traffic and access issues would be addressed during future reviews when a plan was submitted. Written Correspondence: none Rebuttal: Marco Diaz, the applicant, thanked everyone for their comments and confirmed that the current request was only for a zoning change, not a concept plan. He stated that the City (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org has made it clear this development needs two egresses: one planned for 12th W and one on Twisted Willow, to comply with city and fire codes. He emphasized his commitment to transparency and willingness to meet with neighbors to address concerns. Mr. Diaz acknowledged that any development would increase traffic but noted that he had been working with the city to help expand roads and maintain acceptable service levels. He explained that the original goal was to increase zoning to LDR3, but after City Council’s decision, the revised request to LDR2 was intended as a compromise. He expressed his intent to find a solution that met city requirements and addressed neighborhood concerns. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:53 pm. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Geddes expressed concerns about access if the applicant did not own the properties connecting to Twisted Willow. Administrator Parkinson clarified that it was the applicant’s responsibility to secure a second access point, but those details would be addressed during the plat review stage, not during the current zoning request. The discussion also included clarification that the current traffic level was at a “C” level, while the charter school could potentially reduce it to a “D” level. Administrator Parkinson reiterated that traffic considerations would be addressed in future reviews when plats are submitted. Commissioner Richards discussed traffic concerns and the role of developers and the city in road improvements. It was noted that road widening along 12th West would occur incrementally as parcels developed, in accordance with development code, since municipal bonds for major projects were unlikely. He stated that this was a reasonable request, which would only add approximately 12 additional rooftops, and not many trips per hour. Commissioner Lawrence expressed support for the zoning change and stated confidence in the city engineer’s traffic analysis. He explained that the engineer evaluates traffic during peak hours to determine the level of service and that the commission relies on this expertise when making decisions. He concluded that the request represented a good compromise. Commissioner Kempton stated that the zoning change represented a good compromise and commended Mr. Diaz for engaging with the community. He referenced City Council’s recent discussion, noting concerns about maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan and avoiding changes in this area at this time. He expressed that the applicant’s revised request for LDR2 was reasonable and voiced support for the proposal. Commissioner Geddes noted that the proposed zoning change maintained appropriate transitions between adjacent zones, avoiding abrupt shifts from low density to high density residential areas. She explained that the approach provided a gradual step between rural and low density zones and expressed her support for LDR2 in this location. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the rezone of approximately 301 S 12th W, also known as the Birch property, from Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) as it is in accordance with the current Comprehensive Plan and is a good fit for the area and a good compromise. Action: Approve, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: none VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: none (7:00 pm) 8. Public Hearing – (25-01318) Loya - Comp Plan change from LR to IR – Located at approximately 204 S 5th W, the application is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Residential to Intermediate Residential. – Meikel Mortensen 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: Administrator Parkinson presented the request to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation of a property located on 5th West, near Porter Park. The proposal involved changing the Comprehensive Plan designation from Low Residential (LR) to Intermediate Residential (IR), in order to allow a zone change from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3). He confirmed that Staff has reviewed the request and it meets all of the requirements. The group reviewed the location on the map and discussed the surrounding zoning, noting that the area included high residential across the street and low residential on the same side. The density implications were clarified, with the current 1.68 acre property allowing approximately 10 units per acre under LDR2 and potentially 16 under LDR3. Administrator Parkinson explained that while the Comprehensive Plan map designation change would allow for higher density, the commission retained discretion to deny future requests for Medium Density Residential zoning. Commissioner Thackeray asked whether similar situations existed where a few lots had different zoning than surrounding properties. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that such cases occurred in various parts of the city but explained that the goal was (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org typically to maintain contiguous zoning patterns. He noted that in this case, the presence of high residential zoning across the street supported a step down approach to intermediate residential, which aligned with standard planning practices of transitioning from higher densities near commercial areas to lower densities farther away. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:05 pm. Favor: Blake Walker, a resident of Rexburg, spoke in favor of the comprehensive plan change. He stated that buffer zones between higher and lower residential areas provide good planning and expressed support for the proposed change for that reason. He noted that most of his comments would apply to the subsequent zoning change discussion. Meikel Mortensen, representing South Fork Design and working with the applicant, spoke in favor of the comprehensive plan change. She explained that the request to change from low residential to intermediate residential would create a needed buffer zone between existing high and low residential areas. She stated that integrating intermediate zoning would provide a natural transition and reduce abrupt changes and emphasized that such infill projects strengthen communities by adding housing where infrastructure and services already exist, such as nearby schools and parks. She noted that the change would convert underused parcels into a productive development that supports neighborhood stability. Neutral: Greg Newkirk, a resident of Rexburg, stated that while he understood why nearby neighborhoods might oppose the proposed development, he believed the current configuration and location of the lots made them unsuitable for their existing zoning and comprehensive plan designation. He explained that the market demand for the property in its current state was unlikely, and without changes, the lots would likely remain underdeveloped and become problematic. Although he acknowledged the situation was not ideal, he felt that a zoning change might be the best option and described his position as neutral. Opposed: Mary Ann Mounts, a resident living adjacent to the property, spoke in opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. She identified herself as a city planner and former commission member with experience in drafting Comprehensive Plans. She emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan, stating that her neighborhood was established under the promise of low density residential zoning. She argued that changing the plan for a single property undermines predictability for residents and erodes trust in the city’s long term vision. Ms. Mounts noted that such changes often prioritize developers’ interests over community consensus and could set a precedent for future exceptions. She asserted that growth should occur in designated corridors with adequate infrastructure, not within established low density neighborhoods. She concluded that the applicant purchased the property knowing its zoning limitations and that this did not justify altering the comprehensive plan. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Cleve Young spoke in opposition to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. He agreed with the previous speaker’s concerns and expressed frustration over past development promises that were not fulfilled, such as building height limits, aesthetic improvements, and buffer zones. Mr. Young stated that these broken promises had eroded trust and raised doubts about future assurances. He emphasized that the neighborhood was intended for single family homes and argued that adding higher density housing would negatively impact safety, particularly for children who frequently use nearby streets and parks. He also raised concerns about traffic hazards and inadequate ingress and egress options, describing the area as already congested and unsafe. Mr. Young concluded by comparing the proposal to forcing an ill fitting object into a space, stating that the development would create a “mess” in the neighborhood. Isaac Allred spoke in opposition to the proposed change and expressed concern for pedestrian safety. He explained that he and his wife regularly walk with their four young children along Henderson Street to Kennedy Elementary School and nearby parks. Mr. Allred stated that additional ingress and egress points for the proposed development would increase traffic and heighten the risk to children in the area. He emphasized that his primary concern was ensuring drivers remained attentive to pedestrians, particularly small children. Michael Scannell spoke in opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated that his property directly bordered the subject property and expressed strong concerns about losing privacy and security, which he and his family valued. Mr. Scannell noted that he and his wife were uncomfortable with the uncertainty surrounding building height, potential views into their backyard, and who would occupy the development. He also raised concerns about stormwater management, explaining that the property currently absorbed significant rainfall and that additional structures could increase flooding risks in an area already prone to flooding. Mr. Scannell emphasized that his primary concern, like others, was the safety and well-being of his children and concluded by strongly opposing the proposal. Amy Elison, a resident whose property borders the subject site, spoke in opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. She emphasized that the property is surrounded by single family homes and that the Comprehensive Plan was established to preserve this character. Ms. Elison argued that changing the plan for one developer undermines its purpose and sets a harmful precedent, incentivizing similar requests and eroding neighborhood stability. She stated that zoning acts as a contract between the city and homeowners, providing predictability and protecting property values. She expressed concern that higher density development would negatively impact privacy, aesthetics, and property values for existing residents. She urged the commission to uphold the comprehensive plan and prioritize neighborhood integrity over developer profits. Stephen Zollinger, a longtime resident and developer, spoke in opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. He provided historical context, explaining that 25 years ago the city intentionally established 5th West as a dividing line between higher density and single family residential areas. He stated that this decision has proven successful, as the neighborhoods west of 5th West remain thriving. He argued (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org that the property in question is not unusable under its current designation and could be redeveloped within the existing zoning, as he had done in other areas of the city. Mr. Zollinger urged the commission to maintain the integrity of the 5th West boundary. Written Correspondence: 18 letters received, 12 opposed, 6 in favor. Rebuttal: none Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:27 pm. Commissioner Discussion: Chairperson Smith stated her opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, noting that 5th W served as a buffer between different densities. She emphasized that the existing zoning allowed for options such as duplexes, as were built on the other side of the Henderson Subdivision, and saw no reason to change the Comprehensive Plan. She concluded that the request resembled spot comprehensive plan changing and expressed her intent to vote against it. Commissioner Richards stated that while he was generally pro-development and had previously applied for comprehensive plan changes, he viewed this request differently. He explained that changing the comprehensive plan for undeveloped farmland was one thing, but altering it within an established built environment was another. He concluded that the proposal did not meet their criteria for approval. Commissioner Lawrence agreed, adding that the small size of the property included in the request didn’t fit and that crossing the established boundary felt inappropriate in this case. Commissioner Geddes agreed with the previous comments opposing the comprehensive plan change. She stated that 5th West served as a buffer between different densities and that widening the street in the future would reinforce this separation. She expressed concern that changing the plan would create a “spot zoning” situation and could disrupt the established pattern of single family homes, concluding that the proposal was inappropriate for the area. Attorney Rammell provided clarification on the legal framework for comprehensive plan amendments. He explained that decisions to change or not change the plan must be evaluated for consistency with its goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. He noted that while comprehensive plan changes allow for broader discretion and consideration of multiple factors, zone changes require a narrower focus. He emphasized that the commission should consider whether the proposed amendment aligns with the intent of the comprehensive plan and avoid actions that resemble spot zoning. Commissioner Thackeray shared his perspective, noting that when he purchased his home several years ago, the area was zoned for single family residential but had since transitioned to high density residential. He expressed support for affordable housing, citing rising home prices and income disparities, but felt the current proposal was too narrowly focused on only a few parcels. He indicated that if the entire corridor was under consideration, he would feel differently. Commissioner Richards agreed, stating that a (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org broader corridor wide approach would make more sense than a single spot change. Commissioner Kempton agreed. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council deny the Comprehensive Plan change request for approximately 204 S 5th W, because it is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan goals, it would be considered a spot amendment, and 5th west has been a longtime buffer between higher residential and lower residential and was kept as such at the last Comprehensive Plan review. Action: Deny, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by Bruce Casper. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Attorney Rammell advised that the motion mention either the consistency or inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan – the motion was updated to include the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: none 9. Public Hearing – (25-01308) Loya – Rezone from LDR2 to LDR3 – Located at approximately 204 S 5th W, the application is to change the zoning map from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3). – Meikel Mortensen Administrator Parkinson informed those in attendance that this item would not be presented because without the Comprehensive Plan change, rezoning to LDR3 is not an option. Commissioner Lawrence thanked those in attendance for their participation. (7:41 pm) MOTION: Motion to recess for approximately 5 minutes. Action: Approve, Moved by Sally Smith, Seconded by Jim Lawrence. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: none VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: none (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org (7:49 pm) Chairperson Smith called the meeting to order at 7:49 pm. 10. Public Hearing – (25-01261) Loveland Development - Comp Plan from C&IR to C&IR - Located at approximately 801 S 12th W, the application is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Commercial and Intermediate Residential to Commercial and Intermediate Residential. – Jalen Fuhriman 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: Administrator Parkinson presented the request to adjust the boundaries between Commercial and Intermediate Residential Comprehensive Plan designations for approximately 40 acres on 12th W across from the School District property. The proposal did not increase the overall acreage of either designation but sought to realign boundaries to better fit the planned development. He explained that the surrounding area included public facility zoning to the west, commercial uses to the south, and low residential areas nearby. The intent was to maintain residential uses on the northern portion to buffer lower density neighborhoods and step down from commercial areas. Administrator Parkinson noted that intermediate zoning would allow requests for LDR3, MDR1, or MDR2, which were already permitted under the current plan. He noted that development in this area could help the 7th S and Highway 20 interchange be designed and constructed quicker and stated the request was reviewed by staff and meets all requirements. Commissioners discussed the transportation plan and potential access across Highway 20. Commissioner Thackeray asked for confirmation that without approving the request, everything could be built as is, they just want it to fit better. Administrator Parkinson confirmed. The applicant, Caden Fuhriman, with Eagle Rock Engineering, clarified that the proposal would reduce the residential designation by 3 acres. The intent is to keep commercial along Highway 20 and 12th West for visibility, and step down the residential. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 8:00 pm. Favor: none Neutral: Vince Haley provided an update on future road improvements, noting that 7th South from the Meadows entrance to the Summerfield subdivision would be reconstructed this year, including asphalt, curb, and gutter work. He explained that this change was originally scheduled in phases for 2026 and 2027 but had been accelerated. Mr. Haley (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org stated that the intersection at Burton Elementary presented challenges during peak morning traffic but was otherwise manageable. He expressed a neutral position on the proposal, acknowledging that while he did not favor development adjacent to residential areas, the location near a highway and interchange made sense for this type of project. Kelly McCoy inquired why the letter had two maps, one showing a housing buffer zone on 7th S, then this one. Fellow audience members answered that the housing buffer zone is the next agenda item. Commissioner Kempton confirmed that right now only the Comprehensive Plan amendment was being discussed. Greg Newkirk expressed concern about the way the comprehensive plan and zoning were configured for the property. He stated that the current layout caused him significant concern but noted that the public hearing on the comprehensive plan was not the appropriate time to discuss potential solutions or technical details. Mr. Newkirk indicated that he would provide additional comments during the zoning discussion and clarified that he was not opposed to the proposal but had reservations. Scott Burton stated that he was neutral on the proposal but expressed appreciation for the discussion regarding the city’s master traffic plan. He acknowledged existing concerns about traffic in the area and encouraged continued consideration of these issues as development along 12th West progresses. Opposed: John Paul Johnson stated that he appreciated the reduction in intermediate residential acreage in the proposed boundary adjustment but expressed concern about future traffic impacts. He noted that the failure of the Reconnecting Communities Grant made the planned 7th South overpass unlikely to occur in the near future, possibly not even within the next decade. Mr. Johnson indicated that he wished the proposal included even less intermediate residential and stated that this was the reason he leaned toward opposing the change. Brent Harris expressed concern about the process for considering comprehensive plan amendments. He cited language from the comprehensive plan stating that amendments should only be made if conditions have changed such that the plan no longer reflects development patterns or current goals. Mr. Harris argued that potential impacts, such as traffic, water usage, wastewater capacity, and effects on adjacent properties, should be evaluated before any decision is made. He criticized the practice of deferring these evaluations until after an amendment is approved, calling it illogical. Mr. Harris recommended postponing the decision on the proposed amendment until sufficient impact analysis was available. Desiree Diaz, a resident living across from the proposed development, expressed concern about discrepancies between the mailed notice and the presentation maps, particularly regarding the location of commercial zoning. She stated that the notice led her to believe commercial development would be directly across from her home, which caused confusion. Ms. Diaz also raised concerns about traffic and access, noting that 7th S was narrow and difficult for two cars to pass. She referenced nearby apartments (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org on Sunflower, which lack a second exit, and expressed worry about emergency access in the event of a fire. John Paul Johnson asked for an additional 30 seconds, adding that 20 acres of intermediate residential zoning, if built to the maximum density could allow for approximately 400 units. Cheryl Empey, asked for clarification about the angled boundary shown in the comprehensive plan map, questioning whether it represented a waterway or had another purpose. Commissioner Lawrence explained that the angle was simply drawn to run parallel with the highway and did not indicate a water feature. Written Correspondence: 2 letters in opposition. Rebuttal: Caden Fuhriman, provided rebuttal comments, emphasizing that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment itself would not generate traffic impacts. He acknowledged existing traffic concerns on 12th West and 7th South but explained that detailed traffic studies and other impact analyses would be conducted during later stages of the development process, following any zoning changes. Mr. Fuhriman assured the commission that city engineers require thorough evaluations and that developers are responsible for mitigating impacts to avoid burdening existing homeowners. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 8:14 pm. Commissioner Discussion: Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Geddes reviewed the maps and mailed notices confirming that the notices sent to the residents accurately reflected the proposal. Commissioner Thackeray summarized key points from the public hearing, noting that the proposal involved rearranging existing land use designations rather than significantly changing the comprehensive plan. He stated that this adjustment appeared reasonable and emphasized that the planned reconstruction of 7th South should help address traffic concerns. He also highlighted that the proposal reduced intermediate residential acreage by approximately three acres, potentially eliminating around 100 housing units, which could alleviate congestion rather than increase it. Commissioner Kempton stated that the proposed change was not a true alteration of the Comprehensive Plan but rather a realignment of boundaries. He explained that the adjustment improved the plan by placing residential areas closer to existing neighborhoods and moving commercial uses to near the Highway and near the school, creating a better transition between land uses. He concluded that the proposal made sense and represented an improvement over the previous configuration. Commissioner Richards acknowledged concerns about roadway infrastructure along the 12th W corridor but noted that significant development could occur under existing zoning without requiring public hearings, which would still increase traffic. He (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org emphasized that infrastructure challenges were inevitable as growth continued and expressed support for the proposal, stating that it represented a textbook example of why comprehensive plan modifications are allowed—because initial boundary lines are often approximate and adjustments based on practical development needs make sense. Commissioner Geddes expressed concern about the proposed configuration, noting that intermediate residential appeared sandwiched between commercial areas, which could create nuisances for homeowners such as lighting and noise. She questioned whether similar arrangements existed elsewhere in the city. Administrator Parkinson and other commissioners responded that mixed-use patterns were common in Rexburg and other cities, citing examples near Home Depot and Winco in Idaho Falls. Administrator Parkinson explained that city code requires measures such as light shielding and buffers to protect adjacent residential properties, which would be addressed during platting and design stages. Commissioners also discussed the trend toward walkable communities, where integrating residential and commercial uses is considered beneficial. Commissioner Geddes concluded by stating a preference for more commercial development in the area. Commissioner Thackeray responded to concerns about land use configuration, stating that the proposed layout was more of a dovetail than a sandwich because residential areas would still border other residential areas and commercial areas would remain adjacent to commercial zones, creating a logical transition. Commissioner Richards noted that the site was bounded by a freeway and collector roads, which made placing residential in the center logical. They agreed that commercial uses along the highway could serve as a sound buffer for residential areas. Commissioner Kempton observed that while some commissioners might not want to live there, some residents prefer living near commercial amenities for walkability and convenience, and that the proposed realignment improved the transition between land uses compared to the current plan. The discussion concluded with clarification of the existing and proposed configurations and general agreement that the adjustment made sense. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan change from Commercial and Intermediate Residential to Commercial and Intermediate Residential because the changes align with the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Action: Approve, Moved by Brian Thackeray, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: none VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 7, No = 1, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir No: Tammy Geddes Abstain: none (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org 11. Public Hearing – (25-01268) Loveland Development - Rezone from RR1 to LDR3 & MDR2 & RBC – Located at approximately 801 S 12th W, the application is to change the zoning map from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3), Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) and Regional Business Center (RBC). – Jalen Fuhriman 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: Administrator Parkinson explained that the applicant had requested a zoning map change for the same property as the prior agenda item. The proposal included designating RBC, a commercial zone, next to 12th Street and along the freeway. Additionally, the applicant proposed a strip of LDR3 zoning along 7th South to create a lower residential area with less impact on neighboring properties. To the south, the applicant planned to place Medium Density Residential (MDR2) in the center section between the other zones. He clarified that LDR3 zoning allowed single family homes, twin homes, duplexes, and townhomes, but did not permit multifamily units. Commissioner Thackeray inquired about the total acreage of proposed LDR3 zone. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that the area is currently in Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zoning and that approximately 3.47 acres were proposed to go to LDR3, 16.58 acres to MDR2, 6.2 acres to RBC along 12th W and 16.28 acres to RBC along Highway 20. Commissioner Geddes confirmed with Attorney Rammell that even though she voted against the Comprehensive Plan amendment application, she could vote on this item as well. Administrator Parkinson explained that the RBC zone referred to a Regional Business Center, which was intended for developments of 20 acres or more and typically accommodated large retail stores. He noted that RBC zoning had limitations compared to CBC zoning, such as prohibiting uses like machine shops and truck shops, and emphasized that RBC was designed for projects with a master plan approach. He confirmed that the MDR2 zoning would allow multifamily housing such as four-plexes. Caden Fuhriman, the applicant, stated that the zoning layout followed standard planning practices. He explained that the multifamily zoning in the center was designed to create a walkable community, allowing residents to live near schools, commercial areas, and other amenities. He noted that the LDR3 zoning on the north end served as a buffer to larger residential lots. Mr. Fuhriman clarified that while density calculations (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org might suggest a high number of units, actual development typically lost 10–20% of potential units due to roads, parking, and landscaping requirements, making it difficult to reach maximum density. He added that commercial zoning was placed along road frontages for visibility and to act as a buffer against highway noise. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 8:38 pm. Favor: none Neutral: Greg Newkirk expressed concerns regarding traffic access to the proposed RBC zone. He stated that 7th South should not serve as an access point to the RBC near the freeway, as most traffic would likely use University Boulevard and 12th Street. He emphasized that routing traffic through 7th South would be impractical and problematic. Mr. Newkirk explained that his main concern was the potential traffic flow cutting through the RBC and MDR2 zones. He recommended that the rezone be tied to a developer’s agreement to ensure proper planning and functionality. He noted that Idaho law allowed for a concomitant rezone, requiring a development agreement to be adopted alongside the rezone approval by the City Council. He concluded by stating that without such an agreement, he strongly opposed the rezone due to significant planning concerns. Vince Haley stated that he supported the overall concept of the proposed development and believed it could be a beautiful project if executed correctly. He noted that similar developments had been successful in other growing cities such as Idaho Falls, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix, where walkable communities with nearby amenities were common. Mr. Haley explained that having commercial services close by would provide convenience for residents, reducing the need to travel long distances for groceries or other items. He expressed some reservations about the LDR3 zoning on the north end, stating that he would prefer a lower density there, but acknowledged that it served as a buffer to adjacent properties. He concluded by saying that this concern left him neutral on the proposal overall. Opposed: John Paul Johnson began by expressing appreciation for the commission’s work and complimented the Rexburg GIS system. He stated that the commission should vote as if the development would be built to its maximum density, which could be approximately 365 residential units, or around 300 units even after accounting for typical reductions. Mr. Johnson raised concerns about traffic impacts, noting that the intersection at 7th South had previously been rated at level E in a traffic study for the Gem Prep Charter School, which was approved. He emphasized that no traffic study had been presented for the current proposal. While he supported the concept of a walkable community, he pointed out that the west side of the highway lacked amenities such as parks, trails, and bike lanes. Mr. Johnson described unsafe conditions for cyclists on 12th West, where there were no shoulders or sidewalks, and stated that without significant infrastructure improvements, the proposed development would face traffic and connectivity challenges. He concluded by saying that while he liked the idea in principle, he did not believe current conditions would support it. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Scott Burton stated that he shared many of the same concerns expressed by previous speakers. He said that while the proposed development seemed like a good idea overall, he was very concerned about traffic and surrounding infrastructure. Mr. Burton questioned whether there were plans for traffic signals at the intersection near Burton Elementary, noting that adding more housing units would likely worsen existing traffic problems. He pointed out that there were already plans for a significant number of rooftops along 12th West, and adding additional units would exacerbate congestion. Mr. Burton concluded by stating that infrastructure improvements should occur before allowing further development in the area. Desiree Diaz asked for clarification regarding access on 7th Street, noting that it was a dead-end street leading to townhomes. She expressed concern that adding more townhomes would create congestion and make it difficult for residents to exit their driveways. Ms. Diaz asked if there was a plan for an additional road or alternative access. Administrator Parkinson responded that fire codes would require multiple access points for safety, and the city would ensure those standards were met. He explained that while the master plan had not yet been reviewed, additional connections would be required as part of development. He also clarified that the Meadows subdivision had been approved under county jurisdiction before annexation, but future development would include a connection to improve access. Ms. Diaz thanked the speaker for the clarification. Administrator Parkinson clarified that the current version of 7th Street did not have the full right-of-way dedicated and explained that the developer would be required to build out their half of the roadway. This would include sidewalks, curb and gutter, landscape strips, and other improvements, likely expanding the width to approximately 100 feet. He noted that similar requirements would apply to 12th W, ensuring connectivity to University Blvd. Administrator Parkinson emphasized that MDR zoning required sidewalk connectivity to commercial areas and BYU–Idaho, so the developer would need to provide a clear connection through the development. Brent Harris asked what was planned for the commercial property. Administrator Parkinson responded he was unsure as nothing had been presented. Written Correspondence: two letters in opposition Rebuttal: Caden Fuhriman reiterated appreciation for the Rexburg GIS system, noting that it was highly effective compared to other counties. He then addressed infrastructure concerns, explaining that municipalities typically relied on private developers to fund improvements rather than building infrastructure in advance of growth. He acknowledged that he did not favor this approach but stated that the proposed development would help improve 12th West by requiring the developer to widen the road and complete their share of improvements, similar to what occurred with the Iron Horse development. He emphasized that the master-planned nature of the project would include interconnected roads and managed access points on both 7th S and 12th W. He clarified that individual driveways would not be allowed directly onto 7th or 12th Streets for townhomes in the LDR3 zone. He concluded by noting that while annexed county properties posed (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org challenges, future development would follow city standards for connectivity and access management. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 8:55 pm. Commissioner Discussion: Attorney Rammell explained that a development agreement would be required if the project moved forward. He clarified that there were two ways to require a development agreement under Idaho Law: first, under general municipal police powers granted by the Land Use Planning Act, and second, through Idaho Code §67-6511A, which allows a zone change to be contingent upon a development agreement. However, he noted that the second option required implementing an ordinance at the local level, which the City of Rexburg currently does not have. Therefore, tying a zone change to a development agreement at this time would be improper and violate the applicant’s due process rights. He added that while development agreements are currently required at the plat stage under existing ordinances, they are not tied specifically to zone changes. Commissioner Muir asked whether the city required developers to provide amenities such as walking paths, parks, or dog parks in new developments. Administrator Parkinson responded that the city’s current requirements were limited to basic zoning standards, including setbacks, sidewalks, streetlights, and similar infrastructure. He explained that additional amenities, such as parks or recreational facilities, were only required when a developer requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plat. In those cases, developers must meet specific criteria, including providing recreational spaces, higher-quality materials, and other enhancements, to achieve a required score before approval. He noted that Summerfield was an example of a PUD that included such amenities. Commissioner Kempton expressed agreement with Mr. Johnson’s concern about the lack of parks and trails on the west side of the highway and stated that it would be beneficial for the city to proactively plan for such amenities. Administrator Parkinson responded that park development was included in the city’s long-term plans, but noted that timing depended on funding. He explained that the city was currently working on two or three parks. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he had always been concerned about development near highway interchanges because those areas were prime locations for the community. He expressed support for the proposed zoning change, stating that it was a good fit for this type of area and aligned well with what should occur around interchanges. Commissioner Richards agreed with previous comments and noted that the current infrastructure in the area was confusing because it did not reflect a fully developed environment, with only partial streets and limited improvements. He stated that once the proposed development was completed, it would include sidewalks, widened streets, and other enhancements. He acknowledged that additional traffic would result but emphasized that this was a normal part of growth. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Commissioner Thackeray stated that the area currently appeared underdeveloped compared to the rest of Rexburg and expressed support for the proposed zoning change. He believed the development would help improve roads and add necessary infrastructure, moving the area in the right direction. Commissioner Kempton added that he wished development could occur in a more comprehensive manner rather than piecemeal, but acknowledged that the current system operated that way. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the rezone for approximately 801 S 12th W from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3), Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) and Regional Business Center (RBC) because it is accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as revised and provides housing and retail that is important in this location. Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Jim Lawrence. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: none VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Tammy Geddes No: none Abstain: none Administrator Parkinson thanked all attendees for their respectful participation during the hearing, noting that public testimony was civil and constructive, which made the process easier for everyone. Heads Up: ▫ January 15th meeting moved to January 22nd 12. Adjourned at 9:06 PM. Minutes completed with AI.