Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 8.6.26(208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Planning and Zoning Minutes – August 6, 2026 P&Z Commissioners: City Staff: McKay Francis (Chairperson) Brian Thackeray Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator Aaron Richards Vern Muir Christina Gilman – P&Z Administrative Assistant Jim Lawrence Dan Hanna Kyle Baldwin – Planner 1 Bruce Casper Tammy Geddes Natalie Powell Conger– Compliance Officer Tina Lesh Rick Robinson Spencer Rammell – Commissioner Attorney The meeting was called to order by Chairperson McKay Francis; he opened the meeting at 6:35 PM. Planning & Zoning Meeting: 1. Chairperson McKay Francis welcomed those in attendance, as well as those joining the meeting online. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Tina Lesh 2. Recognition of Service – Randall Kempton : Tabled 3. New Commissioner Introduction: Tabled A. Appointment of Commissioner Candi McFadden by Mayor Merrill 4. New Planning and Zoning Vice Chairperson Election The Chair announced that, with Randall Kempton’s departure the Commission needed to elect a new Vice Chair. He opened the floor for nominations. A motion was made by Jim Lawrence to nominate Tammy Geddes for Vice Chair. Bruce Casper seconded the motion. No additional nominations were offered. The Commission voted unanimously in favor, and Tammy Geddes was elected as the new Vice Chair. 5. ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: McKay Francis (Chairman), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Tina Lesh, Tammy Geddes, Rick Robinson Absent: Aaron Richards, Dan Hanna, Brian Thackeray, Vern Muir The Commission proceeded to the approval of the Planning and Zoning minutes from the July 16th meeting. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org 6. Approval of the P&Z Minutes for July 16, 2026 (Action) MOTION: Motion to Approve, the Planning & Zoning minutes for July 16, 2026 (Action) Action: Approve, Moved by Bruce Casper, Seconded by Jim Lawrence VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes =5 , No = 0, Abstain =1). Yes: McKay Francis (Chairman), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Tina Lesh, Tammy Geddes No: Abstain: Rick Robison The motion carried. The Commission moved to the next agenda item: consideration of the Plat for Summerfield Div 14 Subdivision. The Chair turned the time over to City staff for presentation. 7. Plat – (26-00034) Summerfield Div 14 Subdivision - Plat - Located at approximately 620 S 2530 W, the application is to subdivide the property into thirty five (35) lots. – Dan Larsen/Troy Allan Development (Action) Conflict of Interest/Ex parte Conversation: McKay Francis (Chairman), asked the Commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest or conversations held outside of this meeting relative to this particular subject. Presentation: Community Development Director Alan Parkinson presented the proposed plat and reviewed its location within the larger Summerfield development. The proposed Division 14 plat connects to existing phases of Summerfield and extends the subdivision road network to the current boundary of development. Mr. Parkinson reported that City staff had completed their review of the plat and determined that it meets all applicable requirements related to: • Infrastructure design and construction • Road layout and connectivity • Water, sewer, and utility installation • Public utility easements • Drainage requirements • Compliance with the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Discussion Road Connections and Street Naming Commission members asked about roadway connections within the subdivision. Staff explained that the new phase will connect through the existing Summerfield development. Staff also noted that numbered streets in the area are being renamed to reduce confusion and improve navigation. Plat Review Process Overview At the Chairman's request, Mr. Parkinson outlined the plat approval process for newer commissioners. He explained that developers must submit: • Detailed infrastructure plans showing sewer, water, utilities, roads, and drainage systems • Public utility easements • Construction specifications for streets and infrastructure • Legal descriptions for all lots and parcels Plans are reviewed by multiple departments and agencies, including: • City Engineering • GIS staff • County Surveyor • Fire Department (road widths, hydrant placement, emergency access) The County Surveyor verifies legal descriptions, boundary closures, and required signatures before final approval. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process Discussion focused on how Summerfield is being developed in phases despite having an overall master plan. Staff clarified that: • The master plan establishes the overall development concept. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org • Individual phases must return for plat approval as development progresses. • Any substantial change to the approved PUD would require an amendment reviewed by both Planning & Zoning and City Council. • Each phase must function independently with sufficient infrastructure, even if future phases are never completed. Mr. Parkinson explained that platting the entire development at once would require installation of all infrastructure and payment of all development fees upfront, creating a significant financial burden. Phased development allows infrastructure improvements to be constructed as needed. Development Impact Fees Staff noted that each phase is assessed applicable impact and development fees, including costs associated with: • Police services • Fire services • Parks • Streets • Sewer • Water systems These fees must be paid before the plat can be finalized and signed by the City. Existing Development Status Commissioners inquired about the build-out of previously approved Summerfield phases. Staff estimated that approximately 18 to 20 lots remain undeveloped, indicating that the majority of the existing subdivision has been built or is currently under construction. Traffic and Transportation Concerns Commissioners raised concerns regarding traffic conditions near Burton Elementary School and impacts from continued development. Staff explained that: • Traffic studies are reviewed and required by Engineering/Public Works when warranted by development impacts. • This particular phase did not trigger a new traffic study requirement. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org • Future nearby developments may require separate traffic impact studies and participation in roadway improvements. Staff also provided updates on transportation improvements in the area, including: • Reconstruction of 7th South with sidewalks, curb and gutter, and landscaping. • Planned sidewalk improvements associated with a new school administration building. • Future projects intended to improve connectivity between neighborhoods and schools. Sidewalk Connectivity Discussion Commissioners discussed the lack of continuous sidewalks serving Burton Elementary School and concerns regarding pedestrian safety for students walking or biking to school. Staff explained that current City code generally requires pedestrian connectivity to commercial areas, BYU-Idaho, higher-density developments, and schools, but acknowledged that the code may not adequately address all neighborhood-to-school connections. Staff indicated that future code revisions may be considered to require sidewalks based on the total number of units within large developments. Summerfield is anticipated to include approximately 750 dwelling units at full build-out. Following discussion, a motion was made. MOTION: Commissioner Casper moved to recommend approval of the Summerfield Division 14 Final Plat, located at approximately 620 South, 2530 West, consisting of 35 residential lots, and forward the recommendation to the City Council for final approval as it has met staff requirements and continues to fit within the Comprehensive Plan. Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Bruce Casper Seconded by Commissioner Jim Lawrence Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 6, No= 0, Abstain= 0) Yes: McKay Francis (Chairman), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Tina Lesh, Tammy Geddes, Rick Robinson No: None Abstain: None Motion carried unanimously (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org 8. Plat Vacation and PUD Plat – (25-01235) Moody Townhomes PUD – Located at approximately 396 W Moody Rd, the application is to vacate the Shirley Subdivision Plat in regard to the Moody Townhomes Planned Unit Development Plat. The Moody Townhomes PUD Plat application is to subdivide the property into 137 lots. – Marco Diaz (Action) Conflict of Interest/Ex parte Conversation: McKay Francis (Chairman), asked the Commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest or conversations held outside of this meeting relative to this particular subject. Presentation: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) plat and plat vacation for the Moody Townhomes PUD, located at approximately 396 West Moody Road. Planning and Zoning Administrator Alan Parkinson noted that the property was located within the impact area, meaning the Commission's action would be a recommendation to the County Commissioners rather than the City Council. Administrator Parkinson provided an overview of the Planned Unit Development provisions contained in the subdivision code and explained that PUD applicants must meet specific design and development standards. Commissioners were informed that applicants are required to earn points in several categories, including energy efficiency, building design, design themes, parking areas, recreational amenities, landscaping, and open green space. Examples discussed included enhanced insulation, upgraded building materials, themed design elements, additional landscaping, recreational facilities, and open areas for residents. He explained that PUD developments are intended to provide amenities and design features that exceed standard development requirements. It was noted that applicants must achieve a minimum point threshold to qualify for increased density allowances. In this case, the applicant had achieved 70 points, qualifying the project to request an additional two dwelling units per acre above the standard density. Administrator Parkinson reviewed the proposed plat and explained that the existing Shirley Plat would be vacated and replaced by the Moody Townhomes PUD plat. He noted that both actions could be addressed through a single motion in accordance with county requirements. Commissioners discussed how the PUD review process differs from a typical plat or zone change application. Administrator Parkinson clarified that a PUD approval is tied to the specific development plan presented and that any significant redesign or modification would be required to return for further review and approval. He reported that the applicant had completed the required application process, including submission of infrastructure plans, plats, and supporting materials, and had satisfied all applicable requirements. Based on the project's compliance with PUD standards and eligibility for the requested density bonus, staff recommended approval of the application and forwarding a positive recommendation to the County Commissioners. The applicant, Marco Diaz, presented the project narrative for the proposed Moody Townhomes PUD and explained that the development would be located on the Shirley property near the intersection of 396 West and Moody Road. He expressed appreciation for the cooperation of the Shirley family throughout the planning process and stated that they hoped to honor the family's (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org history on the property through future project naming considerations. He explained that the project originated after a nearby MDR2 development was approved and that, after acquiring the Shirley property, they chose to pursue an LDR3 zoning designation with a Planned Unit Development rather than the higher density MDR2 option. Mr. Diaz stated that LDR3 allowed a base density of 10 units per acre and that the project sought a density of approximately 11.7 units per acre in order to accommodate the proposed 137 units. He noted that only 60 PUD points were required for the requested density increase, but the project achieved 70 points due to the requirement to select items from each category. Mr. Diaz stated that the primary goal of the project was to provide an affordable homeownership opportunity, with townhomes anticipated to be priced in the low $300,000 range. To maintain affordability, the development would not include large amenities such as clubhouses or swimming pools, which could increase homeowners association fees. He explained that the project was intended to serve young couples, young families, and young professionals seeking starter homes. He emphasized the importance of providing adequate parking and stated that parking shortages are a common concern in residential developments. Although city code required only two parking spaces per unit, including garage spaces, the project proposed 33 additional visitor parking spaces distributed throughout the development to improve accessibility for guests and reduce parking concerns. Mr. Diaz highlighted the site's proximity to the LDS Temple, commercial development, and retail services, including Walmart, and stated that the area was expected to experience continued residential and commercial growth. He described the proposed townhomes as rear-entry units, explaining that the design would minimize the appearance of garage-dominated streetscapes and improve the overall visual character of the development. He discussed the architectural concept for the project, noting that the design was inspired by Scandinavian-style housing. The units would feature a simple and affordable design while maintaining an attractive appearance. All 137 units would utilize the same floor plan to help control construction costs. Each townhome would include three bedrooms, two-and-one-half bathrooms, and a two-car garage. Mr. Diaz reviewed the PUD criteria used to achieve the required points. Energy-efficiency measures would include enhanced insulation, exterior building wraps, and high-efficiency furnaces to reduce utility costs for residents. Building design enhancements would include upgraded, high-profile roofing materials. He also proposed perimeter fencing and stated that coordination would occur with the canal company regarding fencing and easements along the eastern property boundary. Additional PUD amenities included the provision of visitor parking beyond minimum code requirements, installation of a central playground and recreational area for children and families and expanded landscaping. He stated that evergreen trees would be planted at levels exceeding the minimum requirements by ten percent and that additional drought-tolerant plantings would be incorporated throughout the site to conserve water while maintaining an attractive appearance. Mr. Diaz concluded by stating that the development was not intended to be a luxury product but rather an attractive and affordable housing option. He explained that rising interest rates had increased the importance of providing moderately priced homes and stated that the project was designed to help more residents achieve homeownership while meeting the city's PUD requirements. The applicant answered questions from the Commission regarding the proposed Moody Townhomes PUD. In response to concerns about the canal located adjacent to the property, he explained that discussions were ongoing with the canal company regarding appropriate fencing and safety measures. He stated that a balance would need to be achieved between protecting (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org children and maintaining access for canal maintenance. He noted that ensuring safety near the canal was a priority and confirmed that the project would comply with canal company requirements. Commissioners discussed the fencing shown on the development plans and sought clarification regarding fencing along property boundaries and adjacent to the canal. Administrator Parkinson explained that the canal company would be required to review and approve improvements affecting its easement and that compliance with canal company requirements would be addressed as part of the development process. He further noted that no additional condition regarding canal approval was necessary because the canal company would be a required signatory on the final plat. A commissioner asked whether the homeowners association would prohibit short-term rentals. Mr. Diaz stated that no restrictions on short-term rentals had been included in the project’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Attorney Rammell explained that Idaho law does not allow new CC&Rs to prohibit short-term rentals and noted that any provision attempting to do so would not be permitted. Mr. Diaz acknowledged this requirement and stated that the project complied with state law regarding property rights and short-term rentals. Commissioners also asked about a dog park referenced in project materials. The applicant explained that a dog park had been discussed during the planning process and could still be added in the future, but it was not included as part of the amenities used to obtain PUD points. He stated that only amenities that were certain to be constructed had been included in the PUD scoring criteria. Commissioners clarified that the dog park would not be considered as part of the approval decision because it was not a required component of the proposal. Mr. Diaz confirmed that the playground shown in the plans remained a committed project amenity. Commissioner Rick Robison requested additional information regarding the proposed energy- efficiency improvements. Mr. Diaz explained that the project would include insulated building wrap, which would increase wall insulation values from approximately R-19 to R-22. The applicant stated that the homes would also incorporate high-efficiency furnaces, energy-efficient windows, and enhanced insulation systems to reduce utility costs for future residents. In response to further questioning, the applicant confirmed that the insulated building wrap was not required by code and would be provided as an enhancement above standard construction requirement. Chairman McKay Francis opened the public hearing. He explained the commissioners would first hear from those in favor of the proposal, then from those neutral to the proposal, followed by any who may be opposed. In Favor: Bruce Shirley identified himself as the property owner and stated that he supported the proposed Moody Townhomes PUD. He noted that he had only recently reviewed the plat and did not yet fully understand all aspects of the proposal due to its size and complexity. Mr. Shirley expressed concern that the development appeared to provide limited open space and questioned whether sufficient recreational areas were included within the project. He also observed that a portion of the property located across the canal did not appear to be utilized for recreational amenities, such as parks or dog parks, and asked whether there were any future plans to develop that area for such purposes. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Mr. Shirley stated that he was excited to see the project move forward and expressed his desire for the development to be successful. He concluded his comments by voicing support for the applicant and the project. Mac Shirley 443 W Moran View, also spoke in favor of the project. After identifying himself as a resident of Rexburg and co-trustee of the property that had been sold for the development, Mr. Shirley stated that he had worked with the applicant for several years throughout the transaction process. He commented that the applicant had been reputable and had honored all commitments made during the project. Mr. Shirley stated that he and his family were satisfied with the arrangements that had been made regarding the property and expressed support for the proposed development. Neutral: Neil Call, owner of the property located at 320 West Moody Road immediately east of the proposed development, provided neutral testimony regarding the application. Mr. Call stated that one of his primary concerns had been the installation of a privacy fence along the eastern property boundary and noted that the applicant had addressed that concern. He further stated that a berm would be needed beneath the fence because he continued to flood irrigate his property. Mr. Call also raised concerns regarding a discrepancy along the eastern property line and questioned whether the surveyed boundary aligned with the existing fence line. In response, the Commission explained that its review was limited to the PUD application and development plans as presented. Commissioners noted that the proposal had already undergone engineering review and would be subject to additional requirements before construction could proceed. It was clarified that any dispute regarding the exact location of the property boundary would be a matter between the affected property owners and was not within the scope of the Commission’s review. Allen Call sought clarification on the process for resolving property line questions, and the Commission reiterated that such matters fall outside Planning and Zoning authority. Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Following the close of public testimony, the applicant provided additional clarification regarding questions about open space and the canal easement. The applicant explained that, after purchasing the property, he learned that the canal was subject to a significantly wider easement than anticipated, originally thought to be approximately 30 feet on each side of the canal however it is an 80 foot easement. He stated that the size of the easement initially created concerns about whether the project could achieve sufficient density to remain financially viable. However, the applicant noted that the development was ultimately designed at approximately 11.6 units per acre, which he described as a moderate density compared to other nearby developments that had been approved at substantially higher densities. In response to questions about utilizing land on the opposite side of the canal for recreational amenities, the applicant explained that the canal easement restricted development activities in that area. He stated that he had considered ideas such as connecting the area with a pedestrian bridge and adding recreational features, picnic areas, or other amenities, but those concepts (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org were not feasible because of the easement limitations. The applicant emphasized that the inability to develop that portion of the property was not due to a lack of interest or planning but rather the restrictions imposed by the canal easement. The applicant stated that, despite those limitations, the project would still include green space and recreational opportunities within the development. He noted that residents would have access to landscaped open areas, a playground, and potential additional amenities such as a dog park. The applicant further stated that the open space near the canal would still provide visual appeal and opportunities for walking, even though permanent recreational improvements could not be constructed within the easement area. The applicant concluded by reiterating that the project design had been developed to work within the canal company’s requirements while still providing usable open space for residents. Chairman McKay Francis closed the public input portion of the hearing. Commissioner Discussion: During Commission discussion, staff clarified that the proposed Moody Townhomes PUD was located within the City of Rexburg’s impact area but remained under Madison County jurisdiction. As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commission's role was limited to providing a recommendation, while the County Commissioners would make the final decision on the application. Staff explained that, under an agreement between the city and county, developments within the impact area must comply with city development standards even though final approval authority remains with the county. Commissioner Tina Lesh asked whether the property would automatically annex into the city in the future. Staff explained that annexation could only occur once the property became contiguous with city limits. Staff further noted that the development agreement would require the property to annex into the city when it became eligible to do so. Until annexation occurs, residents would receive city water and sewer services but would not be part of the city tax base and would therefore pay the higher utility rates charged to county residents. Staff stated that the higher utility rates were intended to offset the fact that residents would not be paying city property taxes and that the overall cost difference was generally balanced. Chair McKay Francis also confirmed that the townhomes would be individually platted and individually metered, allowing units to be sold separately. Staff noted that individual ownership required separate utility connections for each unit. Commissioner Jim Lawrence raised questions regarding flood irrigation on adjacent property and concerns expressed by neighboring landowners. Staff explained that addressing drainage, irrigation impacts, and related property protections would be the responsibility of the developer and affected property owners and were not issues requiring Planning and Zoning approval. During deliberations, commissioners generally expressed support for the project. The Chair stated that the development represented an appropriate use of property located adjacent to Highway 20 and the railroad corridor. He noted that higher-density residential projects along major transportation corridors could provide housing opportunities while creating an attractive transition between transportation infrastructure and future residential development. He further commented that the proposed townhomes appeared to be a tasteful project that would help meet local housing needs. Commissioners agreed that the proposal appeared to be the highest and best use of the property but expressed some concern regarding future traffic volumes on Moody Road due to the cumulative number of residential units being developed in the area. Staff responded that (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org traffic impacts had been evaluated through the required review process and that any necessary mitigation measures would be addressed. Staff stated that current traffic conditions remained acceptable and noted that the city’s long-range transportation plans included future roadway improvements, including additional freeway crossings and extensions intended to accommodate future growth. Commissioners discussed planned roadway connectivity within the development and noted that the subdivision design included future road stubs and connections to adjacent developments. Staff explained that the city’s development standards require roadway interconnectivity in both residential and commercial projects to improve traffic circulation and reduce congestion on major roadways. Additional discussion centered on future transportation improvements near the Highway 20 corridor. Staff explained that potential overpass or underpass projects remained in the planning stages and that no final design had been determined. Staff noted that any future transportation project would be designed to avoid unnecessary impacts to existing developments and that acquiring recently developed property would be prohibitively expensive. Several commissioners commented that the lack of opposition from surrounding property owners was a positive indication of community support. The Chair noted that neighboring residents who had previously been active in public hearings were aware of the proposal and had either expressed support or raised only limited concerns. Following discussion, the Chair stated that there appeared to be no additional concerns preventing the Commission from reaching a decision and invited a motion on the application. Before considering a motion, a commissioner asked staff for confirmation that the amount of open green space proposed in the development was sufficient to satisfy the Planned Unit Development point requirements. Staff confirmed that the project met the required standards for open space and had earned the necessary points. A motion was then made to recommend that the County Commission vacate the existing Shirley Subdivision and approve the Moody Townhomes PUD plat. The motion was based on the Commission’s finding that the project was an appropriate fit for the location adjacent to Highway 20, would provide affordable homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers and other residents, met staff requirements, and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Motion to recommend County Commissioners Approve the Moody Townhomes PUD plat as that the project was an appropriate fit for the location adjacent to Highway 20, would provide affordable homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers and other residents, met staff requirements, and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Jim Lawence, Seconded by Commissioner Bruce Casper Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: During discussion of the motion, staff clarified that the recommendation needed to include both the vacation of the Shirley Subdivision and approval of the Moody Townhomes PUD plat. The motion was restated for the record as a recommendation to vacate the Shirley Subdivision and approve the Moody Townhomes PUD plat because it met applicable staff requirements and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org The motion received a second and was approved unanimously by the Commission, with all members voting in favor and none opposed. VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 6, No= 0, Abstain= 0) Yes: McKay Francis (Chairman), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Tina Lesh, Tammy Geddes, Rick Robinson No: None Abstain: None Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson noted that the application would be forwarded to the County Commissioners for consideration at their meeting scheduled for Monday at 9:00 a.m. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM Heads Up: August 20th, 2026 – • Walmart Wireless Communication Tower CUP • Basic American Annexation