Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 25-01268 - Loveland - Approx 801 S 12th W – Rezone fr RR1 to LDR3 MDR2 & RBCReason for Decision 25-01268 – Loveland – Approx 801 S 12th W – Rezone from RR1 to LDR3, MDR2, & RBC November 21, 2025, An application was received from Jalen Fuhriman with Eagle Rock Engineering for Mitch Loveland to rezone a parcel from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3), Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) and Regional Business Center (RBC). December 3, 2025, Payment was received for the application. December 1, 2025, Application paperwork was completed. December 3, 2025, Staff reviews were assigned. December 5, 2025, Staff reviews were approved. December 24, 2025, Staff Report was completed. (See attached) December 10, 2025, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published December 19, 2025, and December 26, 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 – (25-01268) 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 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. 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 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. 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 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.