Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 26-00094 - Diaz (Steiner Property) - Approx 401 S 12th W - Rezone fr RR2 to LDR2&LDR3(208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Reason for Decision 26-00094 – Diaz (Steiner Property) - Approx 401 S 12th W – Rezone fr RR2 to LDR2&LDR3 1. January 30, 2026, An application was received from Marco Diaz to change the zoning map for approximately 401 S 12th W from RR2 to LDR2&LDR3. 2. January 30, 2026, Payment was received for the application. 3. February 6, 2026, Additional paperwork was received and application was accepted. 4. February 6, 2026, Staff reviews were assigned. 5. February 27, 2026, Staff reviews were approved. 6. April 9, 2026, Staff Report was completed. 7. March 6, 2026, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published March 13, 2026, and March 20, 2026. 8. March 17, 2026, Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners. 9. March 25, 2026, An error was identified in the notice. 10. March 25, 2026, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published March 31, 2026, and April 7, 2026. 11. April 1, 2026, Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners. 12. April 7, 2026, Notice was posted on the property. 13. April 16, 2026, the application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Public Hearing – (26-00094) Diaz (Steiner Property) – Rezone from RR2 to LDR2 & LDR3 – Located at approximately 401 S 12th W, the application is to rezone approximately 15 acres from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3). – Marco Diaz (Action) Conflict of Interest/Ex parte Conversation: Chairperson Smith asked the Commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest or conversations held outside of this meeting relative to this particular subject. Attorney Rammell provided brief housekeeping remarks and thanked the Commissioners, Staff, the developer and the public for attending and accommodating a delayed start, noting that some individuals were out of town due to Spring Break. He reminded attendees that public comment would be limited to three minutes per individual and clarified that time could not be deferred to others. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Attorney Rammell disclosed for the record that Commissioner Geddes had a conversation earlier that day with a member of the public. Commissioner Geddes confirmed the conversation with Cherie Barton had occurred that day and primarily involved procedural clarifications regarding the meeting packet and a map included at the beginning. It was stated that the discussion did not involve the merits of the proposal or substantive facts related to the application. Commissioner Geddes indicated the conversation lasted approximately 20 minutes and was intermingled with other general discussion. She affirmed that the conversation would not affect her ability to remain impartial in the proceedings and confirmed that the substance of the conversation related to the project had been fully disclosed on the record. Presentation: Marco Diaz, the applicant, introduced himself and provided his address. He explained that he had previously appeared before the commission seeking to rezone the Birch property and amend the comprehensive plan to Intermediate Residential. While that request had been recommended by the Planning Commission, it was not approved by the City Council. As a result, the applicant revised the request to retain Low Residential zoning. Mr. Diaz stated that the current request related to the Steiner property and involved only a rezoning action. He acknowledged that the Commission was not considering a project or site plan, but explained that he distributed a conceptual plan to Commissioners and neighbors to respond to prior questions and to clarify intentions. He noted that although he typically develops townhomes or twin homes, he had committed to developing single- family lots on the property, and that remained his stated intent. The applicant requested that the comprehensive plan be displayed and noted that the Comprehensive Plan already designated the property as both Low Residential and Intermediate Residential. He explained that the current request did not seek to amend the Comprehensive Plan but instead proposed zoning consistent with it. Mr. Diaz described the request as a mix of zoning, with approximately one third of the site proposed as LDR3 and approximately two thirds as LDR2, consisting of smaller single- family lots. Attorney Rammell reminded the Commission that any discussion of specific site plans, design details, or developer representations should not be considered in deliberations. He emphasized that the Commission’s decision must be based solely on land use criteria, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, impacts on public services, allowed uses, compatibility with surrounding land uses, long term land use patterns, public health, safety, and welfare, and whether the request constituted spot zoning. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Mr. Diaz acknowledged this clarification and reiterated that the conceptual plan was provided only for informational purposes and to communicate with neighbors. He concluded by restating that the request was to rezone the property in accordance with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Administrator Parkinson thanked the Commissioners for their time and attendance, acknowledging that the meeting occurred during spring break and noting appreciation for the Commissioner ’s efforts to attend. He explained that the application requested to rezone approximately 15 acres. The eastern portion of the property, consisting of slightly more than 5 acres designated as Intermediate Residential in the Comprehensive Plan, was requested to be rezoned from RR2 (Rural Residential 2) to LDR3 (Low Density Residential 3). The remaining approximately 10 acres, designated as Low Residential in the Comprehensive Plan, was requested to be rezoned from RR2 to LDR2 (Low Density Residential 2). He reported that staff have reviewed the application, the City has adequate capacity to serve the property, and road improvements would be required to ensure safety and access for future residents, including requirements for multiple points of ingress and egress. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:05 pm. Favor: none Neutral: none Opposed: Brent Morring, a resident of the Willow Brook neighborhood adjacent to the proposed rezoning area, addressed the commission and stated his opposition to the requested zoning change. He stated that he had not heard a compelling justification for the proposed zoning change and expressed the view that the burden of proof rested with the applicant to present a strong and convincing reason for altering the existing zoning. He emphasized that residents had made significant financial and personal investments in their homes and neighborhoods based on the current zoning and land use expectations. He raised concerns about potential increases in traffic, particularly along 12th West, and stated that the proposed rezoning could significantly increase traffic volumes in both the new development and the adjacent neighborhoods. He expressed concern that increased traffic could create safety risks, especially for children. Mr. Morring also commented that the proposed rezoning from RR2 to LDR2 and LDR3 seemed excessive, and suggested that if a zoning change were warranted, a smaller increase in density might be more appropriate. He acknowledged the community’s growth and the need for diverse housing options, but expressed concern that the community might be shifting too heavily toward higher density housing. He stated that maintaining a range of zoning types was important to provide housing options for families at different life stages and income levels. Mr. Moring concluded by reiterating his opposition to the rezoning request and thanking the commission for the opportunity to comment. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Heather Tate, a resident of Willow Brook, expressed opposition to the proposed rezoning. She explained that she had moved to Rexburg from California for college and chose to remain because of the city’s small town feel. She noted that her home was located on Twisted Willow, a street that would be extended into the proposed subdivision. While acknowledging the need for additional housing in Rexburg, particularly related to community growth and the presence of the college, she expressed concern about the impact the proposed development and road extension would have on the traffic and safety in her neighborhood. She requested the Commission consider a lower density and asked that Twisted Willow not be connected to the development. She emphasized the value of preserving the quiet, family oriented nature of the area and expressed concern about Rexburg becoming suburbia. David Higginson, residing on Green Willow Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He stated that his property directly abutted the subject site and expressed concerns consistent with earlier comments, particularly regarding increased traffic. He noted concerns about traffic impacts on 12th West and the need for additional improvements to accommodate growth. He expressed strong concern about routing traffic through existing neighborhoods and supported blocking access through Twisted Willow, citing safety and neighborhood preservation concerns. He also requested clarification regarding the LDR2 zoning designation, specifically asking about allowable lot sizes and occupancy standards. Administrator Parkinson replied that lots of at least 7,260 sq ft were required in the LDR2 zone. Mr. Higginson expressed concern that approval of the rezoning could allow future development types beyond what was currently represented, including the potential for higher density apartment buildings. Administrator Parkinson clarified that such development would not be permitted under the proposed zoning. Mr. Higginson stated he was in opposition to the rezoning, citing a desire to preserve existing views and the established low density, rural character of the neighborhood. He noted that changes to zoning should occur gradually rather than through significant increases in intensity at one time and encouraged the commission to deny the request. Charlene Evans, residing across the street, stated her opposition to the proposed rezoning and raised concerns that a single roadway currently served three schools in the area, including an elementary school, the high school, and a planned charter school. She also expressed concern that the area had limited access to commercial, medical, emergency, and grocery services, with only two primary entrances to the area for so many people. Jon Paul Johnson, a resident of Summerfield, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning and stated that many of his concerns had already been expressed by prior speakers. He emphasized existing and future traffic issues within surrounding neighborhoods, along 12th West, and access to the rest of the city due to Highway 20. He noted that there was no near term solution for additional crossings of Highway 20 and that another crossing was unlikely for many years. He stated that recent rezonings had already allowed for the potential development of more than 500 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org additional residential units along 12th West, and that the current request could allow for an additional approximately 140 units under permitted zoning, regardless of the applicant’s conceptual plan. He expressed concern that even with improvements to 12th West, traffic congestion and access into the city would remain problematic. He further noted the lack of employment centers, hospitals, grocery stores, and other services on the west side of Highway 20, as well as the absence of sidewalks along much of 12th West. He stated that pedestrian and bicycle travel on 12th West was unsafe and expressed concern for families who might need to walk or bike into the city. Steve Kimpel, residing across 12th W, raised concerns about the relationship between continued population growth and transportation connectivity. He noted that while the City could make local decisions regarding the pace of residential growth, it had limited control over when or whether a future connection to 7th South would be completed. He commented that the connection to 7th South appeared to be beyond the City’s direct control and was likely a state level project.. Brent Harris, a resident of Widdison Ln, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. He read the definition of Intermediate Residential from the Comprehensive Plan and emphasized that such areas were intended to function as complete neighborhoods with small scale services and public amenities within walking distance. He stated that, in his view, the proposed location did not meet that intent, noting the lack of nearby amenities or walkable services. He expressed concern that the Intermediate Residential designation was not being applied appropriately in this case. Tyler Barton, residing on Green Willow Dr, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He expressed concern that the request represented a significant change from existing land use expectations and questioned why lower density options, such as LDR1, were not being considered. He noted that the Willow Brook subdivision already had 14 undeveloped lots that could add traffic to Twisted Willow and stated that the proposed rezoning would further increase traffic on an already impacted street. He acknowledged that growth in Rexburg was inevitable but expressed concern that development was occurring ahead of necessary infrastructure improvements, particularly along the 12th West corridor. He described traffic conditions near schools as congested and stated that additional development could raise safety concerns. He concluded by urging the City to address road and infrastructure improvements before approving additional rezoning requests and thanked the commission for their time. Jordan Tait, residing on Twisted Willow, stated he was opposed to the rezoning, wanted to preserve the quiet nature of his street, and requested to not allow Twisted Willow to be extended into the new development. He emphasized the importance of maintaining areas in Rexburg specifically designated for owner occupied, single (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org family homes, noting that a large percentage of housing in Rexburg consisted of rental properties. While acknowledging the property owner’s right to develop or sell the land, he questioned the necessity of increasing the zoning to LDR2 or LDR3 and expressed concern that once approved, zoning would remain in place regardless of changes in ownership or development plans and that developers would naturally seek to maximize the value of the property under the allowed zoning. Sharee Barton, a resident of Green Willow Drive, expressed frustration that similar requests had been brought forward repeatedly over several years and stated that residents had consistently raised the same concerns. She emphasized Rexburg’s identity as America’s Family Community and stated that those within the City should determine what is allowed in the City. She expressed concern that the applicant did not live locally and acknowledged that the developer would need enough homes on the land to make the m oney required to build the roads and infrastructure. She noted that she had purchased her property with the expectation that infrastructure costs were accounted for. She stated that America’s Family Community should get to decide if the area will be Rentburg or Rexburg, and urged the Commission to support the City motto to have more family dwellings. Wanless Southwick, living adjacent to the property in consideration, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. He noted that the property is currently RR2, bordered RR1, and that the LDR2 zone would negatively impact adjacent lower density properties. He stated that he would feel more comfortable with the property being zoned LDR1 rather than LDR2. He also raised questions regarding the roadway access to 12th W shown on the developers handouts, noting he understood the area to be too narrow for a road way and that right-of- way would need to be obtained. He concluded by reiterating that the development would be more acceptable if the zoning were limited to LDR1 rather than LDR2. Leon Parson, spoke in opposition, referencing prior approvals along 12th W that could allow 500 additional homes and stated that traffic was already congested. He expressed concern that increased residential density would further worsen daily traffic conditions regardless of roadway improvements. He commented on the long term impacts of rental housing, stating that rental units tended to remain rentals, while owner occupied homes attracted a different type of resident. He emphasized what he described as a stewardship responsibility to consider the well being of current residents and the overall character of the community , and suggested the area may be better suited for a park. Neal Carter, residing on Twisted Willow, spoke in opposition to the rezone, stating that the neighborhood is still dealing with congestion from the Meadows (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org and further development of this property would further increase traffic and funnel additional congestion into surrounding neighborhoods. Amber Coglianese, residing on Golden Willow, echoed the previously expressed sentiments opposing the rezone. Kathy Parson, residing on 12th W, spoke in opposition of the rezoning, describing the similar nearby development of the Meadows as a mistake and expressed concern that this development would be more of a problem. Jordan Tait asked a clarifying question of the applicant regarding the selection of the subject property for development. The individual inquired whether there was something specific about this parcel that led Utah Development Group to pursue it, or whether the developer had considered other properties in Rexburg or had multiple projects underway. Written Correspondence: Sharee Barton, who also spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:35 pm. Then allowed the applicant to provide rebuttal. Rebuttal: The applicant, Marco Diaz, responded to a clarifying question regarding the selection of the subject property and provided additional context for the request. He explained that Utah Development Group initially pursued only the Birch property, but City requirements for a secondary access point necessitated connectivity, which led to the Steiner property being placed under contract. He stated that the extension of Twisted Willow was required by the City to meet access standards and that there were no feasible alternative access point s. He touched on the attractiveness of the area, citing the university and new temple as indications that Rexburg will continue to grow. Mr. Diaz explained that the Intermediate Residential designation for the portion of the property near the freeway had been established several years earlier, prior to his involvement. He stated that LDR3 was the lowest zone available within Intermediate Residential and that higher densities were possible but not being requested. He emphasized that the request was intended to align with the existing Comprehensive Plan rather than amend it. He noted that development near Highway 20 included higher density housing due to proximity to the freeway and stated that such areas often functioned as transitional or buffer zones between higher and lower density uses. Mr. Diaz acknowledged the neighborhood’s engagement with several prior requests in this area, stating that whether it was him or someone else, the area would be developed. He expressed his desire to maintain a good, amicable relationship with the neighbors. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org After public testimony, an audience member asked if the developer could clarify unanswered questions. A brief discussion followed regarding whether additional questions could be addressed, during which the applicant indicated willingness to answer questions. Sharee Barton raised concerns about the impact of rezoning to LDR2 adjacent to RR1 properties and the width of the road. Marco Diaz responded by explaining that road construction would comply with City standards, including required right-of-way and half-width road construction, and noted that coordination had occurred with the Public Works Director to ensure compliance. He stated that similar properties in the area had transitioned from rural residential to LDR2 and LDR3, including Summerfield. Attorney Rammell advised that the discussion was becoming site specific and reminded the Commission that the project could not be considered in their recommendation. He stated that Mr. Diaz was amenable to having conversations with individuals, but it would not be on the record. Commissioner Discussion: Attorney Rammell reminded the Commissioners to not consider site specific plans and details and to only analyze the considerations of approval for the land use action. Commissioner Thackeray clarified that the proposed rezoning did not amend the Comprehensive Plan and was consistent with its existing designations. He stated that the changes were being initiated by the landowner, who was assuming the financial responsibility for necessary improvements, and noted that the Commission’s discretion was limited so long as the request complied with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Smith agreed and reiterated that the proposal did not involve high density zoning. Commissioner Thackeray further clarified that the request did not allow for apartment buildings or high rise development and consisted only of low density housing. Chairperson Smith commented on Rexburg’s identity as “America’s family community” and stated that families also reside in townhomes and rental housing. She noted that most residents did not begin their lives in the community in single family homes on large lots and emphasized that townhome residents and renters were also families who contributed positively to the community. She stated that while some housing may be transitional, it still played an important role in supporting and strengthening the community. Commissioner Thackeray shared personal experience, noting that many college graduates who remained in Rexburg purchased or lived in townhomes as their first homes in the city. He stated that townhomes could be owner occupied (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org and that while assumptions equating townhomes solely with rental housing were not relevant to the zoning decision, transitional housing options serve an important role in supporting the community. Chairperson Smith asked staff clarifying questions regarding sidewalk requirements as development occurred along 12th West. Administrator Parkinson confirmed that sidewalks would be required along any street frontage associated with new development, but full sidewalk connectivity to the university, or commercial areas would not be required. He noted that existing RR1 single family properties along portions of 12th West were not required to construct sidewalks, which could result in gaps unless the City later chose to install sidewalks for safety purposes. Chairperson Smith also commented on the presence of vacant lots within the Willow Brook subdivision, noting that the cost of building on larger lots may limit demand. It was clarified that the lack of development on those lots was due to the developer’s decision not to complete or sell them at this time, rather than a lack of interest from potential buyers. Commissioners stated that this issue was developer driven and not indicative of housing demand in the area. Commissioner Francis spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning noting that that medium and high density was appropriate near Highway 20. He explained that many communities use a step down approach to density and stated that development near the freeway was suitable for more affordable housing options. Commissioner Francis expressed concern that similar development had been accepted in other areas of the city, such as Summerfield, while opposition remained strong for this location. He characterized this as inconsistent and noted that land adjacent to the freeway was less desirable for large, single-family lots. He stated that the property was well suited for the proposed residential use and suggested that even higher density could be appropriate. Commissioner Francis also requested discussion among the Commission regarding conflict of interest concerns being raised by City Council when the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a land use action and if Councilmembers could have a conflict of interest. Commissioner Francis concluded by stating his support for the rezoning request, commending the applicant for his professionalism and indicating that he believed the proposal represented an appropriate use of the property. Commissioner Geddes expressed several concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. She stated that the lack of connectivity due to Highway 20 was a significant issue, noting that all traffic from the proposed development and (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org previously approved developments would be required to funnel on 12th West. She stated that the cumulative impact of potentially more than 200 additional homes using the same corridor was concerning and raised safety and congestion issues, regardless of whether traffic accessed 12th West via Twisted Willow or other routes. Commissioner Geddes indicated support for lower density zoning, particularly LDR1, stating that a range of housing types was important for community stability. She expressed concern about the balance between owner occupied and rental housing, noting that property is taken care of differently by renters verses home owners. She also raised concerns about impacts on public schools, stating that existing schools, including Burton Elementary, were already at or over capacity and that additional housing could require busing students to other areas. Commissioner Geddes further noted the lack of nearby parks, recreational facilities, and walkable amenities on this side of town and stated that the Comprehensive Plan envisioned “communities within communities” where daily needs could be met locally to reduce traffic impacts. She questioned whether road classifications along 12th West could change as development continued and expressed concern that infrastructure improvements might lag behind growth, creating a “cart before the horse” situation. Commissioner Thackeray responded by noting that the Commission did not consider ownership versus rental status when evaluating zoning requests, as the specific project could not be considered at the rezoning stage. Attorney Rammell clarified the criteria the Commission was required to consider in its deliberations. He stated that while long term land use patterns and general policy considerations were relevant, generalized assumptions, such as claims that renters take less care of property than owners, were not appropriate factors for consideration. He emphasized that such statements were subjective generalizations and should not influence zoning decisions. Attorney Rammell also addressed questions regarding conflicts of interest. He explained that, under Idaho law and applicable case law, a conflict of interest existed only when a decision maker had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the matter being decided. He cited Idaho Code § 74-404 and clarified that hypothetical or indirect impacts, such as potential effects on a profession or business sector, did not constitute a legal conflict of interest. He noted that this is why the Chairperson asked commissioners to disclose any conflicts and offered to discuss the issue further if additional questions arose. Commissioner Muir inquired about the zoning for the Summerfield development. Administrator Parkinson clarified that the Summerfield development was zoned a combination of LDR2 and LDR3 and had been developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allowed greater flexibility and, in some areas, higher (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org effective density than standard LDR zoning. He explained that within a PUD, density could be redistributed across the site by clustering smaller lots in exchange for amenities such as open space, pathways, or recreational areas, provided the overall approved density was not exceeded. Commissioner Geddes noted that portions of Summerfield zoned LDR2 functioned at densities comparable to LDR3 due to the PUD, while some areas zoned LDR3 functioned at lower densities similar to LDR2 or even LDR1. Administrator Parkinson confirmed this and cautioned that zoning labels alone could be misleading without considering the PUD context. Discussion followed regarding the concept of “step down” density. Administrator Parkinson explained that step down development was typically evaluated from the city’s core, Main Street, outward, rather than strictly along roadway corridors. In this framework, higher density uses were concentrated near the city center, with progressively lower densities toward the edges. Administrator Parkinson also addressed traffic concerns, stating that transportation engineers reviewed all applications for impacts on roads, utilities, and services. While acknowledging that traffic changes were inevitable with growth, staff noted that 12th West had greater ca pacity and more available solutions than other parts of the city already experiencing failing conditions under the transportation plan. Administrator Parkinson advised the Commission that rezoning decisions should be evaluated in the context of the city as a whole, including whether the proposal was detrimental to the broader community and whether it aligned with ongoing development patterns. He emphasized that the Commission was expected to rely in part on the professional expertise of City staff, particularly engineering staff, in evaluating infrastructure capacity. It was stated that engineering review addressed the availability of sewer and water service and ensured that roadway systems would function at an acceptable service level, even if not ideally, in accordance with City standards. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve rezoning the property at approximately 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) because it meets city requirements and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Action: Approve, Moved by Brian Thackeray, Seconded by Vern Muir. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: none VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0). Yes: Sally Smith (Chairperson), McKay Francis, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir, Dan Hanna No: Tammy Geddes (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Abstain: none 14. May 6, 2026, the application was presented to the City Council and considered first read. Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) zone to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) zones located at approximately 401 S 12th W 26-00094. Designated as Ordinance No 1347 if motion passes and considered first read. – Alan Parkinson Action Item P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the property under discussion is located on 12th West. A map of the property was viewed on the overhead screen. The property belongs to the Steiner Parkinson family and is located almost directly across from the church building and adjacent to the Summerfield development. He added that the applicant is requesting the back six acres of the property be rezoned to LDR3 while leaving the remainder of the property as LDR2. The property is currently designated as “intermediate” on the comprehensive plan. P&Z Administrator Parkinson added that LDR2 zoning allowed single-family homes, twin homes, and duplexes, while LDR3 allowed those same housing types in addition to townhomes. Council Member Reeser asked for clarification regarding the types of homes permitted within LDR2 zoning and lot size. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that LDR2 permitted single-family detached homes, duplexes, and twin homes. The minimum lot size is approximately 7,256 square feet per lot, which translated to roughly six units per acre under the zoning regulations. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council President E. Erickson asked about connectivity between the Meadows subdivision, the proposed parcel, the neighboring parcels to the north, access to 12th West, and connections into the Willow Brook subdivision. He specifically asked what the city required regarding connectivity. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the city required connectivity between subdivisions and neighboring parcels. Developments exceeding thirty units are required to provide at least two points of ingress and egress. Connectivity requirements help reduce unnecessary traffic on major roads by allowing residents to travel between nearby neighborhoods without needing to exit onto arterial streets. Connectivity standards also improve emergency access for EMS and public safety services. The Meadows subdivision currently only has one access point, and the city is actively trying to determine how to create additional connectivity between the Meadows and the parcel being proposed for rezoning. Council President E. Erickson asked where that connection would likely occur? P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that the only realistic option appeared to be along the north end on the west side of the property. Council Member C. Erickson explained that he does not believe there is sufficient room for a full street connection because the area he observed only allowed space for one vehicle due to existing parking conditions and the road is not considered a city street. Emergency access could have been maintained through a gated connection for fire and emergency services only. He said he believes that opening the road connection may benefit the Meadow subdivision but will negatively impact the northern subdivision. Discussion regarding items reviewed during the plat process, Emergency Services Department would review the necessary ingress and egress to protect residents and provide emergency access; while planning and engineering staff would determine the appropriate street connectivity. Those issues will be addressed during future planning meetings if the project moves forward. City Attorney Rammell explained that any requirement placed upon a developer would be analyzed through an exaction, or takings, analysis by legal counsel, and that those discussions take place as part of the process. City Attorney Rammell explained for the record that one or possibly two emails were received after the public hearing had closed. Those communications have been received and disclosed, and the applicant was made aware of them because they were submitted after the close of the public hearing. He advised the City Council to not consider or rely on the contents of those emails during deliberation or when making any motion, approval, or denial regarding the application. Council Member Riggins explained that his primary concern is ensuring that decisions regarding road capacity, public services, and development impacts are based on evidence rather than speculation or hearsay. He referenced concerns about traffic on 12th Street and questioned whether official studies have been conducted to determine how many vehicles the road can handle. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that both residents and city officials base their decisions on factual evidence and legal standards to determine whether the proposed development will adequately serve the community. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Public Works Director Davidson explained that traffic impact studies are required during the development planning process, although not typically during a rezone application. Once a development proposal is submitted, the city evaluates what is planned for the site and requires a traffic impact study to review intersections, street capacities, and related traffic conditions. The traffic studies evaluate roadway performance using Levels of Service rated from A through F, with Level F representing gridlock conditions. The city’s standard is to maintain at least a Level of Service C. The process involves analyzing the increased traffic impacts caused by a proposed development at nearby intersections and along affected roads. City Staff and engineering consultants will then determine whether the development will reduce roadway performance below the acceptable standard. If traffic conditions are projected to fall below a Level of Service C, the engineering firm will identify what improvements are needed to restore acceptable traffic flow. City Staff will then evaluate the proportionate share of those improvement costs that will be the responsibility of the developer. Council Member Reeser explained that questions arise about public concerns regarding a zoning change and the perception that it could “open the floodgates” for development at the highest density allowed within the zone. He asked for clarification on whether a developer would still need to go through additional approvals before building to the maximum density permitted by the zoning designation. Public Works Director Davidson explained that even if the zone is changed, a developer would still be required to complete the development approval process. That process would include traffic impact studies and evaluations of infrastructure capacity before any project could move forward. Council Member Reeser asked whether a developer could be prevented from building to the maximum allowed density if roads, intersections, or other infrastructure would not support the project. Public Works Director Davidson clarified that those issues are addressed through the development agreement process and associated infrastructure requirements. If a developer refused to complete the required improvements or accept the associated costs identified through the traffic and infrastructure review process, the city would not allow the development to proceed. He added that development approvals depend not only on zoning but also on the capacity of roads, water lines, sewer lines, and other necessary infrastructure. All required improvements and responsibilities will be outlined in a development agreement signed by the developer and city officials. Council Member Riggins noted that the City council had recently dealt with a similar issue involving nearby property and wanted to confirm that the same development review process will apply in that case. He emphasized wanting assurance that any future development would still be required to go through the approval process and that necessary improvements, such as road widening or other infrastructure upgrades, would be addressed to properly serve the community. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the project will return to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council during the development review process. At that stage, the City Council will be able to review traffic impact studies, infrastructure requirements, and other related items to determine whether concerns have been adequately addressed. P&Z Administrator Parkinson also explained that the City Council has access to review the development agreement and other support materials included in the project packet. Council Member Riggins referenced a conceptual plan included in the packet that appeared to show apartments on the (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org south side of the property. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified that the submitted concept plans were included in the packet only because transparency laws required all submitted materials to be disclosed. He emphasized that the City Council should not base their decision on those conceptual drawings because they are not part of the actual zoning decision being considered. The applicant could change those plans later, so the conceptual layouts are not binding and should not influence the City Council’s decision on the rezoning request. City Attorney Rammell explained that, as reflected in the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, he had strongly urged the P&Z Commissioners to disregard certain specific aspects being discussed during the meeting because those issues were not legally relevant to the decision before them. The law contemplates remedial measures and even though the planning and zoning process can appear counterintuitive; however, it is the legal framework currently in place for land use and planning decisions. He stressed that city officials are obligated to make decisions based on applicable law and legal standards rather than personal opinions or public frustration. He referred to a prior work meeting where some Councilmembers discussed new legislation scheduled to take effect in July and regardless of whether officials agreed or disagreed with the legislation, the city would still be required to implement those laws and incorporate them into future land use decision-making processes. The law and established planning procedures are a necessary part of making land use and zoning decisions, even when the process may seem frustrating or counterintuitive. Council Member C. Erickson asked whether there had been a quorum present at a prior Planning and Zoning Meeting referred to by Shari Barton. City Attorney Rammell clarified there were five Planning and Zoning Commissioners that participated in that meeting, three commissioners attended in person and two called into the meeting, which constituted a quorum. Council Member C. Erickson said he has reviewed the zoning proposal multiple times, listened to public comments, and analyzed the zone request in detail. He expressed concern about the abrupt zoning transition he believes it creates too large of a density jump rather than a gradual transition. He raised concerns about connectivity with the Meadows development and the possibility that road access or development requirements could unfairly burden the property owner to the north. He appreciates the developer’s willingness to discuss solutions collaboratively but felt that meaningful discussion and compromise have not occurred during the Planning and Zoning process. He suggested that higher-density zoning might be more appropriate farther away to allow for a smoother mixed -use transition between zoning types. The proposed LDR3 zoning on the east side appeared consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, even though there are concerns about surrounding zoning transitions. Council Member C. Erickson emphasized the importance of considering long-term city growth, housing affordability, and the limited availability of homes within LDR1, LDR2, R1, and R2 zones for second- and third-time homebuyers. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that surrounding zoning patterns already included MDR1, HDR1, LR2, LR3, and MDR2 zones, which supported the compatibility of the proposed LDR3 zoning. The proposal did not constitute spot zoning. He clarified that Planning and Zoning hearings are not negotiation sessions and are legally limited to determining whether proposals (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org meet city code, staff standards, and compatibility requirements. Cities can face lawsuits if projects are denied without legally valid reasons, which restricts how much subjective discussion or negotiation can occur during hearings. He noted that rezoning approvals only address land-use density and zoning classifications, not final building designs or development plans, since those details may change later. Council Member C. Erickson emphasized that Idaho law requires zoning decisions to consider zoning ordinance compliance, public services, infrastructure, land capability, and impacts on surrounding properties and residents. He believes that transitioning directly from R2 zoning to LDR2 zoning created too large of a density jump, especially with adjacent R1 zoning nearby. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that nearby approved LDR1 and LDR2 zoning north of the property supported the compatibility of the proposal. The upper portion of the property is designated as LDR3 in the comprehensive plan and that LDR3 is the lowest zoning classification the developer could legally request without changing the comprehensive plan. Council Member C. Erickson said he agrees with some points regarding freeway-adjacent development but disagreed with several comments made during Planning and Zoning discussions. Specifically, the claim that people did not want to build homes next to the freeway. He pointed out that traveling from Rexburg to Salt Lake City, he has observed many expensive homes built directly adjacent to freeways. He continued to express concern about the transition from RR2 zoning to LDR2 zoning. A lower-density transition such as LDR1, with quarter-acre lots, would have been more appropriate. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that the Planning and Zoning Commission can only consider the zones being presented. Council President E. Erickson said he has observed that residential development has steadily moved westward. The City Council approved an earlier zone change and viewed the current proposal as a continuation of the same general zoning pattern. Although the proposed lots were smaller than the neighboring properties to the north and south, which consisted of half-acre and one-acre lots, He said he feels the proposal still represents a reasonable transition. Growth in Rexburg is inevitable regardless of public opinion and the City Council will need to make decisions about how to manage that growth. He shared that he lives on a one-acre R1 lot with LDR3 townhomes directly behind his property and stated that arrangement has not caused problems. Council President E. Erickson explained that the proposal did not represent high-density residential development and would not create an excessively large project with overwhelming impacts. Instead, he believes it is a reasonable approach to controlling growth in that part of the city. Many nearby properties already existed on LDR2-sized lots, particularly in subdivisions and surrounding developments in the area. Council President E. Erickson said that traffic concerns on 12th West represent an issue; however, he explained that improvements to 12th West will only occur once additional development increases traffic volumes enough to qualify the city for funding and roadway improvements. He remarked that, realistically, development will need to occur before the city can secure the necessary resources to upgrade (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org infrastructure. The traffic issues will likely arise in Willow Brook and along 12th West, he believes those concerns will need to be mitigated and resolved as development continues. Council Member Riggins emphasized the importance of trusting the zoning and approval process. City Staff are expected to conduct necessary studies and fulfill their responsibilities carefully. If the rezone is approved, he stressed that the next steps require proper data, evidence, and planning before moving forward with development. Council Member C. Erickson continued to express his concerns with the drastic zone change from R2 directly to LDR2. He said he supports a more gradual zoning transition, including some LDR1 areas as a buffer. Existing zoning differences (R2 and R1 areas) are important for maintaining separation and neighborhood structure. He opposed opening direct public access through the Meadows area and suggested it be limited to emergency-only access. Opening access could create future problems for the neighborhood. He emphasized the need to preserve larger residential lots, such as quarter-acre and half- acre properties, within Rexburg. Continued rezoning to higher-density developments is reducing opportunities for larger-lot housing. Council Member Tietjen asked for clarification regarding the differences between LDR1 and LDR2 zoning. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that LDR2 allowed detached single-family homes, twin homes, and duplexes, while the primary differences between LDR1 and LDR2 are the inclusion of twin homes and duplexes, as well as differences in lot sizes. Council Member Tietjen asked about the location of nearby R2 zoning areas referenced by Council President E. Erickson. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that the Willow Brook subdivision, located directly south of the property, is zoned RR2. Additional RR-zoned property is located directly north of the Birch property, and some RR1 lots exist along the street frontage on 12th Street. There are also a few R1 lots extending into the middle section of the area, particularly near the Gem Prep property. Council Member Riggins moved to approve Ordinance No 1347 a rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) zone to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) zones located at approximately 401 S 12th W and consider first read; Council President E. Erickson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins Council President E. Erickson The motion carried. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org 15. May 20, 2026, the application was presented to the City Council and considered second read. Ordinance No 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones (26-00094) – Alan Parkinson Action Item ORDINANCE NO. 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED DESIGNATION OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, BE CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Council Member Riggins expressed concern about growing tensions surrounding the rezoning discussion and public perception that residents are not being heard. He referenced a recent incident where a respected community member tore up a city council agenda during a meeting and another resident stated publicly that citizens felt ignored and disrespected. He questioned whether the City Council has done enough to listen, provide answers, and seek compromise with residents affected by the proposed rezone. Council Member Riggins directed an apology to Council Member C. Erickson, explaining that after reviewing prior City Council meeting records, he realized he had misunderstood Council Member C. Erickson’s earlier comments regarding transitional zoning. He now understands that Council Member C. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Erickson was advocating for a “common sense transition” between existing single-family homes and proposed higher-density residential development. The discussion during a previous City Council meeting focused on the proposed zoning classifications of LDR2 and LDR3. He asked whether, if the rezoning were approved as proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission would still have the legal authority to require LDR1-style development along the edge of the project adjacent to existing homes on Green Willow Drive. His goal is to create a transition buffer that would better protect neighboring homeowners and preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained the differences between the zoning categories. LDR1 permits only detached single-family homes with one residence per lot. LDR2 still allows detached homes but also permits twin homes and duplexes as a matter of right. Because those housing types are automatically permitted within LDR2 zoning, he explained that the city would likely not be able to selectively prohibit them on certain lots without changing the zoning classification itself. Council Member Riggins asked whether the city could approve the broader rezoning while still requiring a strip of LDR1 development directly adjacent to the existing homes as a protective transition area. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that because twin homes and duplexes are permitted uses within LDR2 zoning and do not require a conditional use permit, the city would likely need to restart the rezoning process and change the zoning designation itself to legally require only LDR1-style housing in those areas. Council Member Tietjen asked whether the City Council could only vote based on actual evidence rather than feelings or assumptions. City Attorney Rammell responded that he is trying to understand the context of the question and asked whether it related to consideration of a zone change. Council Member Tietjen confirmed that it did. He explained that there are several factors involved in considering a zone change. Some factors are established by statute, while others have been established through precedent by the Idaho Supreme Court. He said that the question is likely related to the delivery of services. He explained that courts evaluated delivery of services by considering both existing services currently available and any remediation or mitigation efforts that could address future concerns. City Attorney Rammell further explained that determining what qualified as facts versus hypothetical concerns depended on the specific circumstances. He stated that if there is substantiated growth in an area, and concerns remained about traffic patterns or road conditions despite proposed mitigation measures, those issues could still be considered. He noted that distinguishing between reality and speculation is fact-dependent and varied according to the specific road, the specific delivery of services, and the services that could be affected in that area. He added that those factors would then be weighed against the specific facts of the proposal. He acknowledged that his explanation is somewhat indirect; however, he framed the question within the proper legal framework for considering a zone change. P&Z Administrative Parkinson responded to Council Member Riggins question, he explained that if restrictions were placed on the types of homes allowed, the density could not be limited differently. The density would remain the same whether the development consisted of single-family homes, duplexes, or twin homes, because the zoning only allowed six units per acre. Council Member C. Erickson stated that he was trying to emphasize the importance of creating a step-down in zoning density. He said that, in his opinion, the City Council should require such a step- down because of an Idaho Supreme Court ruling involving the City of Hailey. The south property should transition from RR2 zoning to LDR1 zoning as a step-down measure. He added that LDR1 zoning requires quarter-acre lots at minimum, rather than allowing six lots per acre. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council Member Reeser asked for clarification about whether the City Council can regulate the style of homes being built without changing the allowed density. P&Z Administrator Parkinson explained that if duplexes or twin homes were prohibited, the density would remain the same. The zone will still allow six units per acre, regardless of whether the homes are detached single-family homes, duplexes, or twin homes. Council Member Reeser clarified that if twin homes are constructed, only three twin-home structures per acre could be built because each structure contained two housing units, resulting in a total of six homes per acre. Discussion regarding the difference between LDR1 and LDR2 zoning. Council Member Reeser explained that LDR1 allowed four homes per acre, while LDR2 allowed six homes per acre. He stated that he is trying to understand the density difference more clearly. Council Member Riggins asked what steps would be necessary to change this rezone to include LDR1, LDR2, and LDR3 zoning options together to create what he described as a “safety belt” for nearby residents. He recalled that during a previous zoning discussion involving nearby properties, the City Council had requested a transitional zoning approach and had sent the proposal back for revisions. He stated that the current proposal appeared even closer to neighboring homes. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded by pointing out that there is RR2 zoning north of the Gem Prep property and that the City Council had not required a step-down to LDR1 in that area. He emphasized that the final decision belonged to the City Council and noted that there are also LDR3 and LDR2 zones west of the property adjacent to TAG zoning. He explained that the City Council needed to evaluate the overall transition between zoning areas. Council Member Johnson stated that she abstains from the vote but wanted to point out that Councilmembers vote three separate times on zoning matters so they can reconsider their position if new information becomes available. She also raised concerns about upcoming state regulations scheduled to take effect on July 1. She asked whether the new laws would limit the city’s ability to regulate developments in the future and warned that delaying action could potentially result in even greater density under the new state rules. P&Z Administrator Parkinson responded that the city staff are still researching the legislation and have not received clear guidance from the state. He explained that the legislation referenced single-family homes, but it remained unclear whether that definition included detached homes only or also included duplexes, twin homes, and townhomes, which were classified as single-family residences under building code definitions. The city will need to update its code to comply with the state requirements by October 1. Mayor Merrill stated that he understands the concerns about requiring a lower-density transition zone but questioned whether the city could legally require that type of restriction if the property could otherwise be serviced appropriately. City Attorney Rammell asked for clarification about the legal question being asked. P&Z Administrator Parkinson clarified the question is whether the city could require only detached single-family homes along the southern border of the property. City Attorney Rammell explained that the application process involved procedural due process rights. He stated that when a property owner applied and paid the required fees, the applicant has the right to request a specific zone change and proceed through the established process. While negotiations and adjustments could occur during public hearings, applicants still retained procedural rights and notice requirements. He added that forcing substantial changes to an application during the second reading could create due process concerns because affected parties may not have received proper notice about the modified proposal. He recommended the City Council to either approve or deny the application as submitted rather than impose major new conditions during the later stages of the process. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org City Attorney Rammell referenced emails previously sent to Councilmembers after the public hearing had closed. He explained that those communications had been disclosed to the applicant because they could potentially be viewed as information received outside the official public record. The applicant had waived certain procedural rights in writing to avoid additional delays and hearings. He advised that making major amendments during the second reading would likely not be procedurally proper. If substantial changes are desired, it would be cleaner and more appropriate to restart the process. P&Z Administrator Parkinson added that any major changes would also require valid reasons supported by new evidence rather than simply public dissatisfaction. Council Member Tietjen asked whether the evidence could consist solely of the fact that residents are upset. City Attorney Rammell responded that it could not. City Attorney Rammell further explained that any new information would likely be reviewed carefully to determine whether improper discussions or open meeting violations occurred. City Attorney Rammell noted that Council Member Riggins clarified that, after reviewing the record more carefully, he better understood the concerns raised by Council Member C. Erickson during the previous discussion. Council Member Riggins explained that although he had initially proposed approving the application, he still believes that important questions remained unanswered. He added he lacked scientific evidence demonstrating that the existing streets could adequately support the proposed development. He stated that he had supported moving the application forward because he trusted the process and expected that additional answers would emerge later. Council Member Riggins stated that, as a member of the community, they did not believe they owed the developer anything personally. City Attorney Rammell responded that while Council Member Riggins did not owe the developer personally, the city owes all property owners due process and equal protection under the law. Property rights are foundational principles, and local governments must balance the rights of developers with the concerns of neighboring residents and constituents. Council Member Riggins agreed and stated that there needs to be a balance between developers seeking to build projects and the neighboring residents who are already established in the area and invested in the community. City Attorney Rammell explained that there is often a distinction between residents feeling unheard and the reality that officials have listened but are constrained by the legal framework governing land use decisions. Land use decisions are not simply based on personal preference but rather on whether those decisions could withstand legal challenges involving property rights or community standing. He said both property owners and community members could claim that their rights have been infringed upon in land use disputes. Discussion regarding new state legislation affecting zoning and development regulations and the uncertainty surrounding how the law would be interpreted. City Attorney Rammell explained that it remained unclear how the statute defined a single-family residence and whether existing projects would be grandfathered under prior regulations. He emphasized that the city is still required to amend its local code by October 1 to comply with state law, even as the legal landscape surrounding zones continued to change. He emphasized that future legislation could further restrict the city’s authority over development density and zoning decisions. While the law created significant challenges and uncertainty for city planning staff, he noted that elected officials could point to state law requirements when making difficult decisions, even if they personally disagreed with the outcomes. Council Member Riggins thanked City Attorney Rammell for the explanation and stated that he wanted to ensure the City Council remained within the law and fully understood what actions are legally permitted. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Discussion regarding traffic impacts and the city’s ability to provide services for new developments. City Attorney Rammell explained that the City Council relies on recommendations from city staff when determining whether roads and infrastructure could adequately support proposed projects. City Staff evaluates developments using established planning standards and guidelines to decide whether traffic impacts could be sufficiently mitigated. Mitigation measures often include requiring developers to contribute toward infrastructure improvements. City Staff determines that traffic and road conditions can be managed to an acceptable level of service under technical standards, even when residents still viewed the impact negatively. Longtime residents often opposed additional traffic and growth but noted that those personal concerns differed from the legal and technical criteria staff are required to apply during the development review process. Council Member Riggins responded by explaining that Councilmembers are ultimately responsible for answering residents’ concerns. He said he based his decision on this zone change primarily on the planning and zoning staff report and the recommendations contained within that document. He noted as Councilmembers they need to be as informed as possible so they can adequately explain their decisions to the public. He added that when residents ask why they supported the proposal, their response is that they fulfilled their legal responsibilities. City Attorney Rammell responded by explaining that the current public hearing system could sometimes feel counterintuitive to community members. Some residents often feel frustrated because they elected Councilmembers as representatives but then discovered they could not freely discuss pending land use matters with them outside the formal public hearing process. The state procedures require the City Council to follow strict rules governing public hearings and communications causing some residents to feel they lack the opportunity to speak directly with elected officials. Council Member Reeser moved to approve Ordinance No 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones and consider second read; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council Member Riggins The motion carried. 16. June 3, 2026, the application was presented to the City Council and considered third read. Ordinance No 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones (26-00094) – Alan Parkinson Action Item ORDINANCE NO. 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED DESIGNATION OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, BE CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Council Member Johnson has obstained for voting at the last City Council meeting. Council Member Reeser moved to approve Ordinance No 1347 Rezone 401 S 12th W from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zones and consider third read; Council Member Tietjen seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Tietjen Council Member C. Erickson Council Member Reeser Council President C. Erickson The motion carried.