City Council

City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes Thursday, January 22, 2026 6:30 PM City Council Chambers 1. Call to Order Present: Mayor Lisa Burtenshaw Council President Jim Francis Councilor Michelle Ziel-Dingman Councilor Jim Freeman Councilor Kirk Larsen Councilor John Radford (via Teams) Absent: Councilor Brandon Lee Also present: Pam Alexander, Municipal Services Director Wade Sanner, CDS Director Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director Brad Cramer, Perspective Planning Zack Jones, City Attorney Emily Geisler, City Clerk 2. Pledge of Allegiance Zack Jones led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Public Comment Randy Fife, County resident: (Attachment) • Thanked the Council for their service and noted the timing as a good opportunity—outside of elections and budget season—to reflect on governance and relationships. • He encouraged a rebalancing of City government and stronger, more intentional coordination between the City, county, and neighboring cities, especially around growth. • He argued that cities cannot control growth, only manage it, asserting that growth is driven by market forces, and urged regional cooperation to ensure responsible growth. • He recommended regular meetings with the county and revisiting city/county impact areas to improve communication and shared planning. • Internally, he suggested examining Council governance practices, including liaison roles, public meeting structures, agenda management, and limiting meeting length. • He proposed eliminating runoff elections to reduce costs, noting that Idaho law allows elections to be decided by plurality or even a coin flip in the case of a tie. • He urged Council members to rely on professional staff and department directors, emphasizing their expertise and the value of bureaucratic continuity. • He encouraged promotion from within to retain institutional knowledge and reward investment in staff. • Finally, he raised concerns about the Public Information Officer (PIO) structure, encouraging the Council to assess whether information flow and messaging are 1  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes appropriately balanced between public information and advocacy, and whether Council priorities are adequately reflected. Antonio Meza, City resident: • This was his second time attending a Council meeting, and he spoke about recent ICE/Homeland Security activities occurring in various cities. • He expressed concern that when ICE-related incidents occur, community members often call 911, which can lead to confusion or escalation when City police respond without clear public understanding of their role. • He emphasized the importance of clarity about the City’s authority and role in such situations so that law enforcement assistance is not misinterpreted as escalating tensions. • He suggested that the City proactively communicate through social media or other channels to clarify the City’s position and response during these situations to help prevent misunderstandings and chaos. • He concluded by thanking the Council, congratulating newly elected officials, and acknowledging Brandon Lee on his first (City Council) term and the Mayor. Brandy Webster, City resident: • As a hairstylist, she addressed concerns reported to her by clients regarding ICE door-to- door enforcement activities. • She acknowledged that immigration enforcement is federal and that she is not asking the City to interfere with federal law, but asked what protections exist for residents when such actions occur locally. • She raised Fourth Amendment concerns, noting that ICE administrative warrants do not authorize entry into homes and that misunderstandings or intimidation can erode public trust and safety. • She asserted that Idaho Falls Police currently lack a written policy on this issue and requested the Council direct the police department and City attorney to adopt a clear non- assistance policy. • Specifically, she asked that City officers and employees not participate in door-to-door immigration enforcement, not provide addresses or act as backup, and not allow City resources or facilities to be used without a judicial warrant. • She concluded that such a policy would protect constitutional rights, reduce City liability, and keep local police focused on local public safety. 4. Consent Agenda A. Office of the Mayor 1. 26-32 Reappointment of David Snell to the Police Department’s Use of Force Review Board B. Municipal Services 1. 26-23 Annual Impact Fee Report 2. 26-33 November 2025 Treasurer’s Report 2  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes C. Office of the City Clerk 1. 26-21 City Council Meeting Minutes (11.26.2024, 1.08.2026) 2. 26-07 December 2025 Licensing through the Office of the City Clerk (New: 32, Renewals: 11, Contractors: 30) Motion: Approve, accept, or receive all items on the Consent Agenda according to the recommendations presented. o Moved by: Councilor Francis o Second: Councilor Larsen o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 5. Regular Agenda A. Public Works 1. 26-30 Development Agreement for Christ Community Church Presentation/Discussion (Director Fredericksen): Public Works presented a development agreement for Christ Community Church at 5742 S. Fifth West, located about a half mile south of Sunnyside Road on the west side of Fifth West. • The property has already been annexed into the City, and the developer’s site plans and improvement drawings have been reviewed and approved. • A development agreement is required even though no plat is needed and is being done with Public Works because most conditions relate to infrastructure. • The agreement includes eight special conditions, primarily involving utilities and roadway improvements. • Water and sewer lines currently end approximately 5,575 feet south of the site; the developer must extend these lines north along Fifth West to serve the property. • The City requires the utility lines to be oversized for future development and will reimburse the developer for the oversizing costs, either directly or through future connection fees paid by other users. • The developer must install left-turn lanes for both church access points to help mitigate traffic impacts. • Any pavement disturbed during utility installation must be properly restored and seal-coated. • Overall, the agreement was described as straightforward, with no questions raised by Council. Motion: Approve the Development Agreement for Christ Community Church and give authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. o Moved by: Councilor Dingman o Second: Councilor Larsen 3  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. B. Municipal Services 1. 26-22 Purchase of Firefighter Turnouts Presentation/Discussion (Director Alexander): The Municipal Services Director presented three purchasing items, explaining that Municipal Services oversees and validates centralized purchasing across departments. • The first item is the replacement of firefighter turnout gear. • The purchase includes 33 sets of firefighter turnouts (coat and pants), acquired through a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract. • The total cost is $140,780.18, which is budgeted in the FY 2025–2026 budget. • Fire turnout gear is replaced on a rotating, planned schedule, with funds set aside each year in anticipation of replacement. • Council clarified that each firefighter is issued two sets of turnout gear so they can change into clean, dry gear during long or consecutive calls. • A Council member noted the significant cost increase over time but emphasized that turnout gear is specialized, essential safety equipment. • Clean, well-maintained turnouts reduce exposure to carcinogens, making the purchase an important health and safety investment for firefighters. Motion: Approve the purchase of firefighter turnouts from the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract 010424-LIO from SeaWestern Fire Fighting Equipment for a total of $140,780.18 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the necessary documents. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 2. 26-24 Replace City Servers Presentation/Discussion (Director Alexander): The item proposes using a State of Idaho cooperative contract with CompuNet to replace City servers. • The purchase will replace four servers. • Servers typically have a 7–10 year lifespan, depending on maintenance and “server hygiene.” • The City will purchase new servers for City Hall and reassign the existing servers to Idaho Falls Power to extend their useful life. • This approach reflects the City’s practice of rotating and maximizing the lifespan of equipment, similar to how other assets are managed. • The item was presented as a routine, planned infrastructure replacement using an established cooperative purchasing agreement. 4  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes Motion: Accept and approve the quote received from CompuNet, accessing the State of Idaho Contract PADD20210672, for a total of $131,441.19 to replace City servers and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the necessary documents. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 3. 26-29 Replace Asphalt Recycler for Public Works Presentation/Discussion (Director Alexander): Municipal Services proposed replacing a 2011 asphalt recycler used by Public Works. • The new unit will be purchased through a GSA cooperative purchasing contract. • The replacement recycler is larger and more efficient, with a capacity of 10 tons per hour. • Asphalt recyclers are used primarily during colder months to handle small asphalt repairs when hot asphalt plants are not operating and temperature requirements limit standard paving. • The purchase supports continued road maintenance outside of peak construction season. • The total cost is $225,524.29, and it is included in the Municipal Equipment Replacement Program for the Public Works Street Division. • Council offered a lighthearted comment appreciating the inclusion of a photo to help visualize the equipment. Motion: Approve the quote received from Bagela accessing the GSA cooperative purchasing contract #GS-30F-001BA for a total of $225,524.29 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the necessary documents. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. C. Community Development Services 1. 26-28 Resolution approving the Eligibility Report for the Narrows Urban Renewal District Presentation/Discussion (Director Sanner, Mr. Cramer): Director Sanner introduced a resolution to approve the eligibility report for the proposed Narrows Urban Renewal District, the first step required by Idaho statute to consider creation of a new district. 5  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes • Approval of the eligibility report does not create the district; it only authorizes the Idaho Falls Redevelopment Agency (IFRA) to draft an urban renewal plan, which would return to City Council for separate consideration. • The IFRA Board approved the eligibility report on September 18, 2025. • Consultant Brad Cramer (Perspective Planning) presented the findings of the eligibility analysis. District Overview • The proposed district is east of the Snake River, south of Freeman Park, mostly west of Fremont Avenue, and includes portions of US Highway 20 right-of-way. • The area is designated Urban Core in the Comprehensive Plan, intended for dense, walkable, mixed-use development. • Zoning includes Limited Commercial (LC), Traditional Neighborhood, Public, and some residential zoning. • Portions of US-20 were included due to uncertainty about future interchange configuration and potential public infrastructure needs. Eligibility Criteria Findings • Idaho law lists 15 eligibility criteria; only one must be met for eligibility. • Seven criteria were found to be met, making the area eligible: o Defective/inadequate street layout due to vacated rights-of-way and lack of access to many parcels. o Poor connectivity, particularly to the west across the Snake River, and unsafe bicycle/pedestrian access near US-20 ramps. o Faulty lot layout, with former streets and alleys creating undevelopable parcels. o Unsuitable topography, including shallow bedrock, exposed rock, steep grades, and high development costs—identified as a primary driver. o Insanitary and unsafe conditions, including debris accumulation and highway drainage discharging toward the river. o Economic underdevelopment and disuse, as high infrastructure and site preparation costs have left the riverfront property largely vacant. • Criteria not met included building deterioration, obsolete infrastructure, diversity of ownership, hazards to life or property (flood/fire), title issues, and broader impacts on overall City growth. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Limitation • State law limits urban renewal districts to 10% of total City taxable value. • Using 2024 valuation data, existing and proposed districts total approximately 1.15% of the City’s valuation. • Updated 2025 estimates place the total at about 1.87%, well below the statutory limit. • These figures will be updated again during the required economic feasibility study if the process moves forward. Council Discussion 6  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes • Property owner permission is not required for inclusion, except for agricultural land, which requires owner consent; unwilling properties can be carved out during planning. • A Council member shared historical context about fire risk and access challenges in the area, reinforcing concerns about terrain and limited infrastructure. Conclusion • Mr. Cramer concluded the area meets eligibility requirements for an urban renewal district. • Council approval of the resolution would allow IFRA to proceed with drafting a detailed urban renewal plan for future consideration. Motion: Approve the Resolution approving the Eligibility Report for the Narrows Urban Renewal District and give authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 2. 26-25 Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Loock Subdivision, Division No. 3 Presentation/Discussion (Director Sanner): The item concerned approval of the final plat, development agreement, and statement of relevant criteria for Loock Subdivision No. 3 (noting a typo in the memo where the name appeared as “Look”). • The application is Plat No. 24-037 and involves a single-lot subdivision. • The property is vacant, zoned LC, and located south Lincoln Road. • The subdivision process is required primarily to: o Dedicate right-of-way at the southeast corner near an existing cul-de-sac. o Formally establish utility easements around the property, without physically dividing the lot. • The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 12 of the previous year. • No public comment was received. • The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. • With no further questions from Council, the item was presented as routine and ready for final approval. Motion 1: Approve the Development Agreement for the Final Plat for Loock Subdivision, Division No. 3 and give authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. o Moved by: Councilor Freeman 7  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes o Second: Councilor Larsen o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. Motion 2: Approve the Final Plat for Loock Subdivision, Division No. 3 and give authorization for the Mayor, City Engineer, and City Clerk to sign said Final Plat. o Moved by: Councilor Freeman o Second: Councilor Larsen o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. Motion 3: Approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the Final Plat for Loock Subdivision, Division No. 3 and give authorization for the Mayor to execute the necessary documents. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 3. 26-26 Final Plat and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Home Ranch Addition, Division No. 7, First Amended Presentation/Discussion (Director Sanner): • Council considered the final plat and written statement of relevant criteria and standards for Home Ranch Addition, Division No. 7 (First Amended), identified as Plat No. 25-010. • The property is located near Community Park west of Holmes Ave, on Higbee Circle, with Longfellow Elementary School to the north. • The site is zoned R-1 and was originally subdivided in 1977. • The request is to subdivide an existing duplex property into two separate lots, consistent with nearby properties where duplexes were later divided into individual lots. • Although it appears like “dividing a house,” the result is two separate duplex units, each on its own lot. • The property currently shares one utility connection; utility drawings have been submitted to Public Works to split utilities, which are under review. • Staff confirmed the application would not have advanced if Public Works believed the utility split was not feasible. • Minimum lot size requirements for R-1 zoning are met: o Lot 17: just under 11,000 sq. ft. o Lot 18: approximately 8,450 sq. ft. (minimum is 7,000 sq. ft.). 8  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes • The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on June 3, 2025, received no public comment, and issued a unanimous recommendation for approval. • Council asked clarifying questions about utilities, building code separation, and lot sizes, with no outstanding issues identified. Motion 1: Approve the Final Plat for Home Ranch Addition, Division No. 7, First Amended and give authorization for the Mayor, City Engineer, and City Clerk to sign said Final Plat. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. Motion 2: Approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the Final Plat for Home Ranch Addition, Division No. 7, First Amended and give authorization for the Mayor to execute the necessary documents. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 4. 26-26 Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Willows Place Townhomes Presentation/Discussion (Director Sanner, Mr. Cramer, Director Fredericksen): • The City Council held a quasi-judicial hearing for the Willow Place Townhomes PUD. • All testimony and materials were made part of the official record and the hearing was opened. Applicant Presentation with Staff Participation: • Brad Cramer (Perspective Planning) presented on behalf of the development team, which includes Mountain West Engineering. • Cramer emphasized prior public input from Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) hearings and neighborhood meetings, noting strong engagement from residents. • Site location: South side of Plommon St, west of S Bellin Rd, south of Pancheri Dr, north of 17th South, near West Side Elementary, single-family homes, and churches. • The site is part of the New Sweden Estates Subdivision, and plat review shows mixed housing was intended for larger lots. • Comprehensive Plan: Area designated as suburban, promoting a mix of housing types, including smaller units to reflect smaller household sizes. The plan encourages higher- density infill development at neighborhood perimeters to protect agricultural land. 9  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes Project Details: • Property size: 1.815 acres, zoned R-1, allowing single-family attached and detached homes. • Units proposed: 14 single-family homes; 25% green space; two amenities (playground, basketball court). • Private street: Required due to site constraints; all utilities will be public and built to City standards. • Setbacks: Comply with zoning; no variances requested for rear yards; front setback variance requested (25 ft required vs. 20 ft proposed) to preserve full rear yards. • Density: Standard R-1 allows 6 units/acre; PUD allows up to 8 units/acre. Proposed 14 units = ~7.7 units/acre, within PUD limits. • Fire access: Hammerhead turnaround approved, incorporating part of the basketball court. PUD Justification: • Needed due to: 1. Private street 2. Front setback variance • PUD minimum size is 2 acres; smaller sites may be approved if Council finds the land is redeveloping. This property has been largely vacant since a 1981 change of use permit for a religious institution. Neighborhood Engagement: • Neighborhood meetings addressed concerns about rear-yard access and fencing. • Planning Commission discussed fencing along the canal, but no requirement was imposed due to drainage, access, and canal constraints. • Planning Commission recommended approval 5–1. Public Comment and Notice: • Notice sent 24 days prior, exceeding state minimum of 15 days. • Late written comments could not be included in the packet but were welcome in person at the hearing. Infrastructure & Utilities: • Traffic: Threshold for study is 100 units; project has 14, so no traffic study required. Anticipated impacts reviewed and approved. • Water & Sewer: Adequate capacity; digester upgrade planned; City-wide infrastructure can support the development. • Water pressure: No known issues; temporary impacts possible during construction. • Stormwater: Managed on-site per City policy to protect adjacent properties. • Street lighting: Can be evaluated if needed. Council Questions Addressed: • Clarifications on density calculations, PUD size, private street vs. public street feasibility, amenity access (primarily for owners, not public), and setback rationale. 10  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes Conclusion: • The project complies with zoning, PUD standards, and the comprehensive plan. • Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. • Council opened the floor for public testimony. Public Testimony: Dave Rocknak (Attachment) 1. Conflict of Interest / Ethics: Asked for clarification on communications between Council members and developers/contractors, questioning whether it is appropriate for someone he believes to be a staff member (Mr. Cramer) to represent both the contractor and Community Development Services. 2. Fire and Safety Concerns: Requested that fire code compliance be verified for the development, noting changes in codes since 1979–1981. Highlighted concerns about emergency access to utility transformers if landscaping or trees block access. 3. Impact Fees and Infrastructure: Emphasized that Idaho law requires new developments to pay proportionate impact fees for transportation, public safety, and infrastructure. Asked for clear allocation of fees to improvements on Bellin, Broadway, and Pancheri, and questioned emergency service impacts from added traffic. 4. Housing Growth and Affordability: Noted that the City already has hundreds of apartments and townhomes under construction or approved. Highlighted median household income (~$69,600) and new townhome costs (~$350,000), arguing that the PUD may not meet affordability thresholds and could shift infrastructure costs to existing residents. 5. Neighborhood Compatibility: Raised concerns about high-density development adjacent to established single-family neighborhoods. Asked how the project aligns with comprehensive plan policies on density transitions, land use compatibility, and enforceable mitigation of traffic, noise, and neighborhood impacts. 6. Request for Postponement: Urged the Council to postpone approval until impact fee allocation, transportation, emergency services, and neighborhood compatibility issues are fully documented, quantified, and enforceable. Stressed that his request is not anti- growth, but seeks thoughtful, lawful, and equitable planning. Teri Smith 1. Property and Privacy Concerns: Her backyard would directly face four new townhome units instead of a single home, raising concerns about privacy and overlooking. 2. Vacancy Clarification: Questioned the characterization of the church-owned lot as “vacant,” noting it wasn’t developed until purchased by the developer and had been owned by the church with a church on it. 11  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes 3. Public Hearing Process: Expressed discouragement that public hearings and Planning & Zoning meetings seemed predetermined, with some commissioners suggesting approval was inevitable if the project met code. 4. Zoning and Compatibility Issues: o Noted that R-1 zoning codes changed in the late 1990s, reducing protections for existing homeowners against high-density developments. o Raised concerns that the PUD’s multi-unit, attached buildings (three units per building, 81 ft long, 35.5 ft wide, two stories) are not compatible with the surrounding single-family homes in bulk, scale, mass, or character. o Disagreed with staff and developer claims that attached units are equivalent to detached homes in terms of privacy and neighborhood fit. 5. Neighborhood Impact: Emphasized that the PUD would negatively affect the established neighborhood’s character and privacy, and that compatibility standards are not being fully met from her perspective. Mack Smith 1. Location and Subdivision Context: o Corrected misconceptions that the lot is on the edge of the subdivision; it is actually within the New Sweden Estates subdivision and referred back to a plat shown earlier. o The lot was intentionally left open in the original plat, likely for drainage purposes, not because it was vacant. 2. Neighborhood Benefits and Amenities: o The project offers no new amenities or benefits, as existing recreational facilities (playgrounds, basketball courts, storm pond) already serve the area. o Emphasized the lot was well-maintained by previous owners and served local charities through mortgage proceeds. 3. Housing Supply and Affordability: o Noted that Idaho Falls has more housing units than households, and multiple developments are already under construction nearby. o Argued the 14-unit PUD would minimally affect overall housing supply but would significantly impact immediate neighbors. o Highlighted that the proposed $300,000 townhomes are not affordable for median-income households when factoring in mortgages and HOA fees, suggesting a fairer price would be around $254,000. 4. Infrastructure and Drainage Concerns: o Existing stormwater drainage may be impacted by development, potentially affecting fiber optic utilities, electrical cables, and soil stability. o Raised concerns about water pressure based on nearby developments and the need to address broader infrastructure issues, not just zoning compliance. 12  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes 5. Neighborhood Impact: o Emphasized that the development would have little benefit for the broader community but significant effects on existing residents, echoing concerns about privacy, scale, and compatibility. 6. Overall Message: o Urged the Council to consider broader impacts beyond mere code compliance, including infrastructure, drainage, affordability, and neighborhood character. Cindy Feliciano • Cindy Feliciano is a resident of the affected neighborhood and spoke in opposition to the proposed housing development at the specific site under consideration. • She emphasized that while she is not opposed to growth in general, and acknowledged that significant new housing has already been built throughout the surrounding area, she believes this particular location is the wrong place for the development. • She questioned whether elected officials are truly representing the wishes and desires of neighborhood residents, asking how many neighbors supported the project at the neighborhood meeting and suggesting there was little to no local enthusiasm for it. • She expressed frustration that residents’ concerns may not be carrying enough weight in the decision-making process. • Ms. Feliciano stated that she would be open to development in a different location, but strongly opposed it at the proposed site due to concerns about neighborhood fit and appearance. • She asked the Council to postpone consideration of the development to allow further thought, and ultimately requested that the project not be approved at all, stating it would not be good for the neighborhood. Bridget Hall • Bridget Hall, a resident of Idaho Falls, spoke in opposition to the proposed development and zoning variance. • She cited the purpose of the City’s comprehensive zoning code, arguing that the proposal does not promote peace, general welfare, or compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, as evidenced by widespread neighborhood opposition. • Ms. Hall stated that the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) fails to meet code requirements for an improved living environment and compatibility with existing neighborhood character, which she described as predominantly detached, owner- occupied single-family homes. 13  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes • She noted that within the surrounding area there are approximately 401 single-family homes, two churches, and one elementary school, with no existing townhomes, emphasizing the incompatibility of the proposed housing type. • Ms. Hall argued that neighborhood opposition was stronger than represented, stating that multiple residents spoke and wrote against the proposal, while support came primarily from the developer, and that opposition letters were not reflected in the Planning Commission minutes. • She raised traffic and infrastructure concerns, detailing narrow road widths, canal crossings, school traffic congestion, limited east–west river crossings, and inadequate capacity on nearby streets such as Bellin, Plommon, and Grandview Drive. • Ms. Hall contended that the parcel’s “awkward” configuration resulted from a prior lot division and that the developer is now seeking a PUD variance as a remedy for a self- created problem. • She emphasized that granting a variance would be unfair to neighboring property owners, comparing it to bending traffic laws for personal convenience, and urged decision-makers to consider residents’ quality of life over the developer’s investment. John Johnson (Attachment) • He spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He provided written materials and historical Google Earth images showing how the area has developed from 2017– 2022, noting that nearby parcels remained undeveloped for years before recent high- density projects were added. • He argued that the proposed amenities do not meaningfully benefit the neighborhood, citing existing public and church basketball courts already used by local children and questioning whether proposed amenities would be truly accessible to the broader community. • Mr. Johnson emphasized the distinct identity and character of the Westside, describing it as a close-knit community with unique neighborhood features, including long- standing street-naming traditions, and stated that the proposed street name does not fit that character. • He raised public safety concerns, questioning whether the proposed hammerhead turnaround would adequately accommodate large fire apparatus, based on his experience assisting the fire department. • Mr. Johnson challenged claims of housing affordability, asserting that the proposed townhomes would not be affordable for average City employees such as police officers, firefighters, or parks staff. • He disputed statements about household size, stating that many families in the broader neighborhood include multiple children and that outreach to residents was limited to a narrowly defined area, excluding others like himself. 14  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes • Mr. Johnson cited an outdated 2019 traffic study, arguing it does not account for recent and ongoing development. He described significant existing traffic congestion related to school drop-off and pickup, construction, limited alternate routes, and constrained intersections near Bellin and Pancheri. • He expressed concern that the proposed development would exacerbate traffic and intersection capacity issues, particularly given limited ingress and egress options. • Mr. Johnson also raised parking concerns, citing similar developments where insufficient on-site parking has led to extensive on-street parking congestion. • He concluded by urging decision-makers to consider the cumulative impacts on traffic, parking, safety, affordability, and neighborhood character, and questioned whether the proposal is in the best interest of the community. Kiery Wilson • She spoke in opposition to the proposed development. • Ms. Wilson emphasized the rapid increase in high-density housing in the area since 2017, noting hundreds of new townhomes and apartments built within a short radius and timeframe, and argued that the cumulative density is already excessive. • She stated that the proposed 14–20 units at the site are incongruous with the surrounding neighborhood, which she described as established and primarily single- family in character. • Ms. Wilson expressed concern that some residents were unaware the property could be developed in this manner and felt blindsided by the PUD process. • She raised school capacity concerns, citing Westside Elementary as already overcrowded and disputing claims that few families with children would occupy the new units. • Ms. Wilson challenged assertions about small household sizes, stating that many nearby homes and townhomes house larger families or multiple households due to housing costs. • She argued the proposed units do not reflect the values, character, or community identity of the neighborhood. • Wilson urged elected officials to listen to and represent neighborhood residents, stating clearly that the community does not want the development at this location. Mark Weaver • He spoke in opposition to the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD). • He emphasized that City code requires a minimum of two acres for a PUD, noting that the language allowing consideration of smaller parcels is permissive, not mandatory, and that the Council is not required to approve the request. 15  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes • Mr. Weaver argued that the proposed development is not compatible in scale or type with the surrounding neighborhood, pointing to visual comparisons showing the small lot size relative to vehicles, driveways, and parking demands. • He stated that the project would require multiple adjustments or variances to City code, including those related to fire apparatus access and the use of a private street instead of a public road. • Mr. Weaver raised concerns that the development would violate streetscape standards, which call for streets not to be dominated by parked vehicles and garage entrances, especially given likely overflow parking, trailers, and boats. • He noted that the PUD request is not solely about allowing a private street, but also about increased density and reduced lot sizes, citing eight units compared to R-1 zoning standards of six units per acre and lot sizes of approximately 2,500 square feet versus the 7,000 square feet required in R-1 zoning. • Weaver also questioned building height compliance, stating that public notice listed a 29-foot height while Idaho code limits height to 20 feet. Christian Ashcraft • He spoke from a neutral perspective, stating he was neither clearly for nor against the proposed development. • He acknowledged that the decision is difficult and recognized both the developer’s efforts to work within tight constraints and the reasons why neighbors might be upset. • Mr. Ashcraft asked the Council to provide clearer guidance on what “respecting neighborhood character” means, including how much change or deviation is acceptable. • He questioned how much public opposition or perception should weigh in decision- making, especially when a proposal technically meets all code requirements. • He encouraged the Council to better explain the reasoning behind approvals, beyond stating that requirements were met, so residents feel heard and understand why standards matter. • Mr. Ashcraft emphasized the importance of transparent communication, balancing predictability for developers, the benefits of infill development, and community concerns, to improve trust and closure in future decisions. Robert Hipkins • Mr. Hipkins spoke in opposition to the development and stated he did not feel adequately notified nor was he considered a neighbor despite his proximity - living across the street from the proposed site. 16  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes • He expressed frustration with past nearby developments that he said did not match the neighborhood and were approved without sufficient notification or traffic analysis. • Mr. Hipkins raised traffic and road safety concerns, stating that surrounding roads are already strained and that adding 14 units “doesn’t make sense” for the area. • Drawing on his experience as a delivery truck driver, he described the access road as a “nightmare,” saying large trucks, sanitation vehicles, and fire apparatus would struggle to maneuver, especially with a dead-end configuration and hammerhead turnaround. • He questioned the practicality and safety of emergency access, stating he would not attempt to drive large vehicles onto the site. • Mr. Hipkins also commented that the layout appeared gated or closed-off, making it feel unwelcoming and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • He concluded that he saw no appropriate use or clear benefit for the development at that location and opposed moving forward with it. Further Council Discussion: Council Deliberation – Legal and Policy Discussion • Legal counsel confirmed the Council may deny a PUD if it finds required criteria are not met, provided the decision is supported by facts in the record (including public testimony) and formal findings. • Council members emphasized that PUD approval is discretionary, not automatic, even if some standards are met. • The hearing was closed and Council proceeded to deliberate. Council Deliberation • Council Member Francis stated he could not support the PUD: o The project does not meet redevelopment criteria o The site is under the two-acre minimum, which he viewed as a valid basis for denial o Claimed public amenities were not truly public due to private streets, signage, and lack of enforceable access guarantees o Green space was insufficient and overstated, with driveways and parking areas counting toward setbacks • Multiple members expressed concern that the proposal required too many deviations to be justified by the benefits offered. • Emergency access and fire apparatus maneuvering were seen as functionally problematic, even if technically code-compliant. • Several Council members stated the development would feel private and exclusionary, not like a neighborhood asset available to the public. • Streetscape standards—specifically the requirement that streets not be dominated by garage doors and parked vehicles—were cited as unmet. 17  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes Pros Acknowledged by Council • The property can be developed by right under R-1 zoning at six units per acre. • There is a recognized need for additional housing, including infill development. • Traffic impacts would likely be limited. • The property owner has a legal right to develop the land. Cons Outweighing Pros • Lack of clear, enforceable public benefit to justify the proposed PUD concessions • Private street design increases congestion and parking conflicts • Density and lot size reductions go beyond what Council members found reasonable • The project prioritized maximum density rather than neighborhood compatibility or collaboration Limits on City Authority • Council noted it cannot deny a project based on housing price, affordability, or school overcrowding under Idaho law. • Decisions must be based strictly on adopted code criteria to avoid litigation risk. Consensus Direction and Outcome • A majority of Council members indicated the PUD should be denied, not merely postponed or sent back for redesign. • Council emphasized the developer still retains the right to develop the property under existing R-1 zoning with a public street. • The Mayor indicated readiness to vote no and appointed Council President Francis to draft the written findings supporting denial (Reasoned Statement). Motion 1: Deny the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Willows Place Townhomes as presented. o Moved by: Councilor Dingman o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. Recess: 9:39 PM – 9:45 PM Motion 2: Direct staff, including the legal department and Community Development Services, to draft a Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the denial of the planned unit development for the Willows Place Townhomes to be reviewed on 2/9/2026 and voted on on 2/12/2026. 18  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes o Moved by: Councilor Francis o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 6. Announcements (None) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:48 PM. /s/ Emily Geisler___________________ /s/ Lisa Burtenshaw _____________ Emily Geisler, City Clerk Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor 19  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes Attachment 1: Public Comment (written) submission from Randy Fife GENERAL GOVERNANCE 1. Growth Growth is market and developer driven, not City driven. Cities can do very little to influence sale prices or where in the City growth occurs. While a City can provide a variety of development options and keep review, processing, and inspection delays and fees low; growth happens where developers and the market decide. Although recent campaigns seemed to focus on limiting growth, focus on responsible growth and installation of infrastructure to accommodate inevitable growth. For example, the City could explore making single family housing more affordable by changes to zoning, setbacks, and infrastructure that accommodates tiny homes. 2. Continue to support and refine City Impact Fees. New growth, as much as possible, should pay for its impacts. Impact fees are legal and help offset the cost of new development impacts on current taxpayers, while continuing to support managed growth. 3. Establish a recurring joint City/County meeting. This joint meeting could be used for sharing information about common and separate governance goals and policies. Where cities and counties communicate, they tend to cooperate. In a regional hub like Idaho Falls, there is great overlap of interest among those who live, work, study, shop, and provide services locally. Remember that EVERY City resident is ALSO a Bonneville County resident. City residents in Idaho Falls, Ammon, Iona, Ucon, Swan Valley, and Irwin, should be thoughtfully considered by the County Commissioners when the County acts. Counties provide consistency in governance for ALL County residents, while also having exclusive governance over County residents who live outside of City boundaries. Occasionally, counties overlook or minimize the needs of their City constituents when they focus on their rural responsibilities. Regular meetings can bring all-county matters to Commissioners’ attention. 4. Rewrite the Area of City Impact Agreement. Cooperation and agreement between the City and the County on HOW reasonably anticipated growth is to be managed should be a joint priority. It is irresponsible, in my opinion, to use the ACI to limit growth by a City; allow the creation of substandard infrastructure to be passed onto City taxpayers; or to encourage urban growth in the County. On the other hand, the County should continue to support the reasonable exercise of property rights and agricultural uses by those outside of City limits. 5. Consider a process to allow the City to alter certain parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements where it serves a public interest. Allow the City to alter certain infrastructure requirements where the “variance” granted to the City supports or promotes City services, values, or economies. The process could be incorporated into a current public process. For example, the new Library parking lot could have increased the number of parking stalls but for the landscaping and other requirements normally expected of private development. 20  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes REBALANCE OF CITY GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS 1. End runoff elections. A runoff election delays planning and transition, adds unnecessary expense, and rarely changes outcomes. If Idaho Code allows for a coin flip to determine elections in case of a tie, why require more process? What is it about Idaho Falls that requires certainty beyond a plurality? A candidate should run their best campaign first and the winner wins and we move on. 2. Replace or modify the current Councilmember liaison system with a public process that gives every Councilmember (and members of the public and the press) the same information. The current system tends to advantage or disadvantage City Departments depending upon the skills, seniority, or persuasion of a particular Councilmember or Department Director. The current system does not effectively or efficiently transfer to the other Councilmembers what the assigned liaison knows about the item that is considered on the agenda. Creating Council specialists shifts knowledge of functions, topics, spending, and budgets away from Council members who are not assigned to the Councilmember assigned to a particular Department. The current system also allows the Mayor to control what and when items get placed on the Council agenda (or forces the majority of the Council to publicly vote to include a specific item). Adopting a system similar to Moscow, Idaho’s, levels the playing field and provides to the general public and all Councilmembers equal access to information upon which a Council decision will be made. It also allows Councilmembers to direct the Mayor to place items on the agenda. Briefly, Moscow splits the work of the City into two broad categories through which two Councilmember Committees (each comprised of three Councilmembers) consider items destined for a Council meeting, except for agenda items subject to Local Land Use Planned Act public hearing process. The Public Works/Finance Committee and the Administrative Committees, respectively, conduct a public Committee meeting to consider an agenda produced jointly by the assigned Chair of the respective Committee and the Department Director proposing the agenda action item. The Committee considers the published agenda item and either votes to advance it for consideration by the full Council at a Council meeting, or the Committee directs staff to bring it back to a subsequent Committee meeting, or the matter dies. Every Committee meeting is a public meeting and the materials and information provided are public records. Any Councilmember not on that Committee, the public, and the press may attend. Because three Councilmembers vote to advance any item on the agenda, the Mayor is unlikely to refuse to place such on a Council agenda. The Mayor does retain some flexibility regarding the order and timing of an agenda item. In Moscow, the Committees meet back to back on the same day so that Councilmembers can conveniently attend the meeting of the Committee that they are not on. This way, all Councilmembers receive the same information at the same time and can ask questions of the presenter. Of course, any Councilmember wishing to review Committee activity can simply access live or archived video and materials at any time, as can members of the public and the press. 3. Set time limits on Council meetings. 21  City Council Meeting 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Minutes In my experience, decisions made in long and late Council meetings are not as effective as those made at a reasonable hour. Set a time after which no new item on that meeting’s agenda will be considered. Set a time certain for the end of a Council meeting. Consider limiting redundant testimony in land use hearings. Exceptions to these practices can be made by Council vote where critical to a fair outcome. 4. Reconsider “Power Board” and “Airport Board” meetings. A Council and Mayor can only act by and through the authority granted to them by the Idaho Code. Calling itself a “board” or holding separate meetings for the airport or Idaho Falls Power/Fiber does not change, increase, or decrease Council authority or consequences. The Council obligates large sums of money and resources in these “board” meetings. To be more transparent and consistent, hold meetings focused on these City enterprise funds at the same locations and time of day as Council meetings. This supports the reality that enterprise funds are not different in status or importance than other City budgets, activities, or exercises of authority. 5. Hold joint meetings with important stake holder governing bodies. Consider regular Council joint meetings with the City Planning and Zoning Commission, nearby cities, regional planning groups, etc., where public sharing of interests could increase understanding and cooperation. OTHER 1. Support the Public Library By adequately funding and nurturing the Library, the City can provide individuals and families with a free or low cost and safe, supportive space in which to learn, meet, and create. Open and fair access to materials, programs, maker spaces, and meeting rooms enhances home school programs, protects and sustains First Amendment principles, and promotes a free society, educated in democratic principles processes. 2. Adopt a “One percent for the Arts” ordinance. Earmarking 1% of monies allocated to a public works project to enhance its aesthetic appeal can be easily accomplished at no increased cost to the project. The art feature might be as simple as attractive fencing, patterned concrete or brick work, or sculpture. This approach has been successful elsewhere in Idaho and it would complement the City’s effort on the River Walk, parks and streets, and downtown. 3. Create a visible local plant demonstration garden on the River Walk. Establishment of a garden using attractive, drought tolerant, local plants in a very visible location along the River Walk (like the West site of the river between Broadway and Pancheri), utilizing irrigation that roughly reflects local natural precipitation, would allow residents and visitors to see landscaping options that conserve water and upkeep. It could also support City water conservation and maintenance reduction efforts at very little cost. 22