Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rexburg council denies comprehensive‑plan change for 301 S. 12th W., sends proposal back to planning commission
Summary
The council voted to deny a planning commission‑recommended comprehensive‑plan map change for the 6.5‑acre Birch property (301 S. 12th W.) after extended debate about traffic, sidewalks, neighborhood character and whether the comp plan should be amended; the matter will return to planning and zoning for rehearing.
Rexburg — The City Council denied a planning and zoning recommendation to change the comprehensive plan designation for roughly 6.5 acres at 301 South 12th West (the Birch property). The proposal would have changed the map from Low Residential to Intermediate Residential to permit higher densities; the council voted to deny the change and directed the matter back to the planning and zoning commission for rehearing.
Planning staff presented the application and background. “The applicant approached us about requesting a zone change a few months back,” planner Alan Parkinson said, explaining the property’s history, the request’s scope and that the parcel has been considered multiple times. Staff noted the proposed change would enable higher densities that could include medium‑density residential types.
Council debate centered on whether the requested change aligns with the recently adopted comprehensive plan and surrounding neighborhood conditions. Several council members urged caution: one councilor said the plan took extensive public input and that the proposal did not meet the plan’s goals and objectives for that area. Concerns included limited sidewalks and shoulders on 12th West, peak‑hour traffic impacts near the proposed GEM Prep School site and the potential to set a development precedent that could alter adjacent parcels’ future zoning.
Other councilors and some speakers argued the comprehensive plan is a living document and that the city needs a range of housing types, including “missing middle” options such as townhomes, to improve affordability. Staff and multiple council members noted a traffic impact assessment and specific infrastructure upgrades would be required at the zoning/plat stage; legal counsel also clarified that, after the council’s denial, the public‑hearing and notice requirements in city code typically require the application to return to planning and zoning for further review.
Outcome: A council member moved and the council passed a motion to deny resolution 2025‑14; legal counsel advised that the action requires an additional public hearing and that the commission may be asked to rehear the application or to consider alternative step‑down options. The council recorded the denial and sent the item back to the planning and zoning commission for rehearing.
What remains: The applicant may revise the proposal and the planning and zoning commission will review any changes in a subsequent public hearing. The council emphasized that infrastructure and traffic mitigation will be decisive factors in subsequent review stages.
