Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 25-01318 - Loya - Approx 204 S 5th W – Comp Plan change fr LR to IRReason for Decision 25-01318 – Loya – Approx 204 S 5th W – Comp Plan change from LR to IR December 4, 2025, An application was created for Mikel Mortenson with Southfork Design for Walter Loya to change the Comprehensive Plan map for 4 parcels from Low Residential (LR) to Intermediate Residential (IR). December 4, 2025, Payment was received for the application. December 4, 2025, Application paperwork was completed. December 4, 2025, Staff reviews were assigned. December 16, 2025, Staff reviews were approved. December 31, 2025, Staff Report was completed. (See attached) December 23, 2025, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published December 23, 2025, and December 30, 2025. December 22, 2025, Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners. December 30, 2025, Notice was posted on the property. January 8, 2026, The application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 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 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. 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 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 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 January 21, 2026, The application was presented to the City Council and considered first read. February 4, 2026, The application was presented to the City Council and considered second read. February 21, 2026, The application was presented to the City Council for a third and final read.