City of Idaho Falls | minutes | meeting 2026-08-06 | Special City Council Meeting source: https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_08062026-2166 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 1 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Thursday, August 6, 2026 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 1. Mayor Burtenshaw called the meeting to Order at 7:00 PM Present: Mayor Lisa Burtenshaw Council President Jim Francis Councilor Michelle Ziel-Dingman Councilor Jim Freeman Councilor Kirk Larsen Councilor John Radford Absent: Councilor Brandon Lee Also present: Wade Sanner, CDS Director Mack Smith, Presenter Zack Jones, City Attorney Linda Lundquist, City Clerk 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Rocknack led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Public Comment - No one appeared. 4. Regular Agenda A. Community Development Services 1. 26-258 Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing-Request for Reconsideration of the decision to approve the application for the Planned Unit Development, PUD25-002, for Willows Place Townhomes for the property located at 1080 S Bellin Road. Presentation/Discussion (Director Sanner, Mr. Smith): The Willow Place Townhomes Planned Unit Development (PUD) reconsideration hearing addressed the Idaho Falls City Council's June 25, 2026 approval of PUD 25-002, a proposed 12-unit townhome development at approximately 1080 South Bellin Road. The reconsideration represented the final local-level review before the matter could proceed to district court. Because the matter was quasi-judicial, Council was required to apply the City's existing PUD regulations to the evidence in the record rather than make a legislative or policy decision based solely on neighborhood opposition or preferences regarding development. Quasi-Judicial Procedure and Ex Parte Disclosures At the beginning of the hearing, Mayor Burtenshaw explained the special procedures governing a quasi-judicial matter. Council members disclosed contacts they had received regarding Willow Place. Council Member John Radford reported that Mack Smith spoke with him immediately after the previous hearing, before Council had been advised that the matter was quasi-judicial. Council Special City Council Meeting Minutes 2 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Member Brandon Lee received a phone call from an opponent but did not engage in discussion. Council President Jim Francis did not answer calls concerning the project and deleted a voicemail after learning it concerned Willow Place. Councilors Francis and Lee had also participated in mediation with the developer. The City Attorney explained that quasi-judicial decision-makers must avoid one-sided communications about a pending case. Due to his participation in the mediation, Francis recused himself from the final vote. The hearing process included the parties seeking reconsideration, the City's staff response, public testimony, rebuttal, and Council deliberation. Mediation and Changes to the Project Before the June 25 approval, the developer requested mediation with the City. Curt Thompson served as mediator, and approximately four hours of negotiations occurred through the mediator. The City entered mediation to address concerns previously identified during an earlier hearing, including privacy, public access to amenities, density, streetscape and driveway lengths. The project had already been reduced from 14 units in triplexes to 12 units in six twin homes, bringing the density to approximately 6.61 units per acre. The mediation resulted in additional changes, including relocating the playground to a more publicly accessible location, requiring it to meet Parks Department standards, adding signage inviting public use and identifying the HOA as responsible for maintenance, and allowing the developer to name the park. One twin home was moved across Zoey Lane to break up the row of homes and reduce parking impacts. Driveways were increased from 20 to 25 feet, while a separate east-side buffer was reduced from 10 to 5 feet. A full fence was discussed but was not required, in part because of concerns about access to a utility facility. The City accepted somewhat less than 25% common space during mediation to accommodate the relocated home and stormwater retention, although the parties later indicated that this issue was resolved differently. The City's mediation team included representatives from Legal, Community Development Services, Public Works, Idaho Falls Power, and Councilors Francis and Lee. Opponents' Arguments for Reconsideration Mediation, Public Process and Due Process Mack Smith presented many of the opponents' primary arguments. He questioned whether the mediation process and subsequent approval provided residents with adequate due process. Smith argued that Council effectively approved the mediated proposal before residents had a meaningful opportunity to comment on the changes. He cited Idaho Code §67-6525 and argued that a mediated land-use agreement should be followed by an appropriate public hearing before the decision-making body. He maintained that the process created the appearance that Council had already committed to the mediated proposal and that neighboring property owners who could be directly affected should have participated in mediation. The City responded that the mediation agreement did not itself approve the PUD. The revised project remained subject to a full public hearing, where Council retained the authority to approve or deny the application. Because the developer requested mediation, the City maintained Special City Council Meeting Minutes 3 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID that it was appropriate for the mediation to occur between the applicant and City representatives rather than as a separate negotiation involving neighborhood residents. PUD Review and the Two-Acre Requirement Opponents questioned whether a PUD could properly be approved on the approximately 1.8-acre site, arguing that the City's general two-acre minimum should have prevented approval. Staff explained that the PUD ordinance allows smaller sites to be considered when Council determines that the project qualifies under an exception, including redevelopment or the provision of a public benefit or amenity. Council determined that Willow Place qualified as redevelopment. Staff cited previous PUDs involving parcels under two acres, including Skyline Manor and Anderson Townhomes. Staff later corrected an earlier reference concerning Cleveland PUD, acknowledging that it was under two acres but had never been approved. Opponents also argued that substantial revisions to the project should have required another neighborhood meeting and Planning and Zoning Commission review. Staff and the City Attorney explained that the City's major and minor PUD amendment provisions apply to already-approved PUDs. Because no Willow Place PUD had been approved before June 25, the revised proposal was not technically an amendment to an existing PUD and therefore did not require another Planning Commission review before Council's decision. Density, Lot Size and Neighborhood Compatibility Opponents argued that the development was inconsistent with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. Roy Matthews focused on density and lot size. He initially argued that the property should have approximately six units per acre under R-1 zoning and therefore contain about 10 units. He also questioned whether the proposed lots met the 7,000-square-foot R-1 minimum. Staff clarified that Willow Place was being reviewed under PUD regulations, not conventional R-1 development. The PUD provisions permit different density and design standards and do not impose the same minimum individual lot-size requirement applicable to conventional R-1 lots. Opponents nevertheless argued that the project represented too much flexibility from the surrounding neighborhood's established development pattern. They pointed to differences in building type, scale, construction and appearance between the proposed two-story twin homes and existing detached single-family houses. Residents also questioned the western property buffer, setbacks, parking arrangement, landscaping and the amount of common space. Setbacks and Inconsistent Project Documents Teri Smith raised concerns about inconsistencies between documents presented during the process. She said the original PUD requested reducing a 25-foot setback to 20 feet and understood from mediation that the developer agreed to restore a 25-foot setback or driveway area in exchange for reducing another buffer. However, she said publicly posted maps and findings still appeared to show a 20-foot setback. The discrepancy became a continuing point of discussion. Staff later stated that the approved plan showed a 20-foot front setback and 25-foot rear setback. Developer Colin Hunter subsequently described the roadway as having been shifted five Special City Council Meeting Minutes 4 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID feet and characterized the resulting arrangement as providing 25-foot setbacks on both the front and rear. This created some continuing uncertainty in the discussion about exactly how the approved setback configuration should be characterized. Opponents argued that discrepancies among plans, maps, plats and measurements made it difficult for residents to determine precisely what Council had approved. Canal Safety and Fencing - Canal safety was another major concern. Mack Smith described the nearby canal as a significant hazard for children because of its steep banks, cold and fast-moving water, and difficulty escaping once someone enters it. He characterized it as an "attractive nuisance" and questioned why the development's amenities would be open to the public without additional canal protection. Residents also requested a privacy fence between Willow Place and neighboring properties. Staff explained that the PUD ordinance does not generally require privacy fencing between residential developments. Fencing is specifically required in certain circumstances, such as residential property next to commercial development or a dog park. For Willow Place, the applicable requirement was a landscape buffer. Staff said the developer's proposed western landscape buffer satisfied the ordinance. The code provides an option for a six-foot fence as part of the buffering solution, but the developer did not choose that option. Councilor Francis clarified that fencing had been discussed during mediation and that the developer's January 2026 written commitment remained part of the record to work with individual adjacent property owners on appropriate fencing solutions, with no commitment exceeding six feet. Residents questioned whether such commitments would remain enforceable after approval and urged that important agreements be formally documented. Drainage, Stormwater and Site Conditions - Drainage and stormwater became one of the most extensive areas of disagreement. Opponents described the site as having existing drainage characteristics and argued that it had historically functioned as a drainage area for surrounding properties. Mack Smith raised concerns about the site's elevation, existing berms, soils and basalt conditions and argued that development could create additional runoff problems. He questioned whether the site's underlying windblown loess and silt soils could create problems if saturated and pointed to shallow basalt and large basalt boulders as additional development challenges. A major dispute involved whether Willow Place's stormwater system would operate independently from the adjacent church property. Smith pointed to a drainage easement shown on a plat that appeared to connect the development to the church's drainage system. He questioned whether surrounding runoff that currently flows onto the property had been incorporated into the engineering calculations and whether all necessary agreements and approvals were in place. The developer maintained that the Willow Place stormwater system would be self- contained on the PUD property and designed to accommodate a 100-year, 24-hour storm event under City requirements. Any remaining church drainage would be handled separately by the church. Special City Council Meeting Minutes 5 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Staff said the City's stormwater requirements include a master plan, engineering calculations and plans prepared and stamped by an Idaho-licensed engineer. The plans were routed through CDS to Public Works, where City engineers reviewed and approved them. Staff emphasized that the project would not have advanced to the public hearing if City engineering staff had determined the stormwater system was inadequate. The developer explained that certain stormwater and cross-access easements would be formally recorded during the later plat and site-plan process. Staff and the developer emphasized that the PUD stage establishes the basic development concept, while detailed engineering and construction requirements are addressed during subsequent review. Church Property, Parking and Easements The relationship between Willow Place and the neighboring church property generated repeated questions. Staff clarified that the church property is not part of the Willow Place PUD and that Willow Place does not rely on church parking to meet its own requirements. For 12 units, the project requires 24 parking spaces, while the proposal provides 42 spaces, including garages and guest parking. Residents nevertheless questioned separate easements involving the church property, including stormwater, utilities, access and prior property transfers. Mack Smith identified a 2025 right-of-way deed conveying approximately 3,072 square feet of church property to the City for public street/highway purposes for $1, as well as a public utility easement granted to the City for $1. He questioned the timing and relationship of those transactions to the development process. Staff explained that PUD approval does not automatically eliminate existing easements. An Idaho Falls Power easement remains along part of the western property, and Idaho Falls Power reviewed the proposal and retained its rights. The modified project also affected church access. Discussion clarified that the church's western parking-lot entrance would need to close to accommodate Zoey Lane, with a hammerhead turnaround intended to provide emergency-vehicle access. Residents also raised concerns about an alleged longstanding adverse easement they said they had used for decades to access backyards. Public Notice and Project History Staff maintained that all applicable state notice requirements had been satisfied. The City began publishing notice on June 3, mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet on June 8, and physically posted the property. Staff said the notice specifically identified the revised Willow Place PUD and stated that it would return to Council for a public hearing following mediation. Staff acknowledged that residents might not have immediately received or noticed mailed notices but said the City cannot control mail delivery. Staff also acknowledged that the project's history - multiple versions, a neighborhood meeting, an initial denial, mediation and revisions - could understandably create confusion. However, staff maintained that the version presented at the June 25 hearing was the revised plan that Council ultimately approved. Special City Council Meeting Minutes 6 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Other PUD and Development Standards Staff explained that Willow Place was required to provide one amenity for every 50 units. With 12 units, the project was required to provide one amenity and proposed two. Staff also explained that PUD regulations intentionally provide flexibility from traditional zoning requirements in exchange for features such as common space, amenities, landscaping, compatible development, efficient infrastructure and interconnected design. The City's position was that the PUD approach was appropriate for the site's irregular, L- shaped configuration. Staff also clarified that Willow Place did not rely on church parking for compliance and that the church's conditional use permit remained valid because the church continued to operate as a religious institution. Public Testimony Miranda Marquit questioned whether the project would meaningfully improve housing affordability and argued that new townhomes could still be unaffordable to many households. She urged Council to require meaningful amenities, green space and neighborhood benefits. Colby Hadden, representing Stronger Idaho Falls, supported the project and argued that Idaho Falls needs additional housing, particularly duplexes, triplexes and townhomes. He said increasing housing supply could help moderate prices and that denser development could make more efficient use of infrastructure. Angela Klingler opposed the project and expressed broader concerns about protecting established single-family neighborhoods from rezoning, variances and increased density. Kiery Wilson questioned the City's handling of ex parte communications and whether residents' communications could be preserved in the record without creating improper contact with Council. She also questioned whether commitments concerning fencing, canal access and public amenities were sufficiently documented and enforceable. Stephanie Sandbeck, a nearby resident and mother, raised traffic and pedestrian safety concerns around Bellin Street and Pancheri Drive. She described a serious accident and expressed concern about additional traffic from the development. She urged Council to delay the project until necessary transportation improvements were in place. Lisa Kincaid raised concerns about communication, drainage, code compliance and the location of amenities. Bridget Houx argued that the project did not conform to the City's Comprehensive or Master Development planning concepts for locating higher-density housing closer to commercial areas and transitioning to lower densities farther away. Raul Ruiz raised concerns about capacity at Westside Elementary School and questioned whether the school could accommodate additional students generated by new housing. Special City Council Meeting Minutes 7 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Developer Developer representative Colin Hunter defended the project and argued that the property had remained undeveloped for more than 20 years and had not functioned as a meaningful neighborhood amenity. Hunter maintained that the development team had followed City regulations and worked closely with staff throughout the process. He argued that increasing the housing supply could help moderate housing costs and that the developers reviewed zoning requirements before purchasing the property and determined the site qualified for a PUD. He also argued that additional students could generate additional state funding for schools. The developer maintained that the project's engineering, zoning and development requirements were being addressed through the City's established review process. Rebuttal Dave Rocknak, is still concerned about water drainage, the easement, parking and an agreement between the developer and the church. Gretchen Rocknak (testimony is considered public comment) also spoke regarding the condition of the property and described the lot as an unmaintained "weed patch," stating that the church had historically maintained the field by mowing it. She focused particularly on fencing and drainage concerns and hopes it is being addressed in the PUD. Steve Heath with Mountain West Engineering explained that the drainage was calculated and a pond was designed to withstand a 100-year storm event. He said the PUD will handle its own water drainage and the church will address its drainage. As well, he explained that the PUD has satisfied its parking with adequate spaces, and the church will be responsible for its own parking. Mack Smith asked for clarification regarding the PUD changes regarding drainage and acknowledged that the developer is now showing a 25-ft setback, which took much back and forth to establish (much like the drainage issues). He said that the neighborhood drains into the PUD. He explained that the “weed patch” is the result of the developer not mowing the lot, but has since been mowed due to several complaints. Mr. Smith said the maps/plots are inconsistent and the codes are complicated and hard to understand. Teri Smith is pleased that the neighbors have been provided some clarifying information. She commented on the improvements to the aforementioned 2-acre plots. She realizes that the church is not reliant on the PUD parking lot but pointed out that, in order for Zoey Lane to comply with code, one side of the church lot will need to be closed. She commented that in the June 25 meeting, supporters of the PUD weren’t necessarily commenting on the effects of the PUD on this neighborhood, but on what a great person Mr. Smith is and his experience building similar homes in other neighborhoods. Ms. Smith asked if the request for reconsideration is denied, are the neighbors allowed to request mediation. She also feels like all the neighbors’ concerns weren’t addressed at the June 25 meeting. She feels that Council’s “discretion” is always in favor of the developers. She claimed that losing the neighbors’ adverse easement will cost her $10,000 because that access is how she gets her trailer into her own backyard. Ms. Smith brought up that the developer offered to pay for half of Mr. Rocknak’s fencing in a prior meeting. Special City Council Meeting Minutes 8 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Council and Legal Deliberation As the hearing moved toward deliberation, Council asked the City Attorney to clarify the limits of Council's authority. The City Attorney emphasized that Council was acting as a quasi-judicial body, not as a legislative body. Its task was to apply existing PUD standards to the evidence in the record. The distinction was important because Council could not simply deny the project because residents opposed it, because Council members preferred lower density, or because another type of development might be more desirable unless those considerations provided a lawful basis under the applicable ordinance. The City Attorney also distinguished the Comprehensive Plan from binding zoning regulations. The Comprehensive Plan can guide future policy but does not replace the enforceable PUD and zoning ordinances. Consequently, Council could not deny the project solely because members believed another land use would better match the broader planning vision if the PUD satisfied the applicable standards. The attorney also discussed the potential for a regulatory takings claim if Council denied the project without a legally sufficient basis. Council referenced the Idaho Supreme Court's TCR, LLC v. Teton County decision as an example of the consequences that can arise when a local government denies a development application without adequate support in applicable law and facts. Councilors acknowledged that the hearing raised legitimate concerns about growth, density, traffic, neighborhood compatibility, PUD flexibility and the City's broader development policies. However, they concluded that those policy concerns did not necessarily provide a legal basis for overturning this particular PUD. Councilor Freeman questioned whether 12 townhomes would materially increase traffic or population compared with six single-family homes and noted that the revised project addressed concerns he had previously identified. Councilor Dingman discussed available traffic information concerning Pancheri Drive and indicated that the roadway appeared to have capacity. She also referenced District 91 enrollment, which she said had remained relatively flat over the last four years. Councilors repeatedly emphasized the importance of relying on evidence in the record and applicable law rather than speculation. Broader Discussion of Future PUD Regulations Although Council concluded that it was legally constrained in deciding Willow Place, Councilors and the Mayor acknowledged that the hearing exposed areas where the City's PUD regulations could be clearer. Mayor Burtenshaw said staff was already examining the PUD ordinance and considering changes that could establish clearer parameters for future applications. Council recognized that any future ordinance changes could not be applied retroactively to Willow Place. Council also discussed changes in state law that have expanded residential development opportunities and limited some aspects of local control over density, accessory dwelling units, parking and other development issues. The Willow Place hearing therefore prompted a broader conversation about how Idaho Falls should regulate future PUDs while complying with state law and preserving appropriate neighborhood protections. Special City Council Meeting Minutes 9 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Final Decision After extensive testimony and deliberation, Council concluded that the reconsideration question was ultimately whether the June 25 approval complied with the existing PUD standards and applicable law. Although individual Councilors acknowledged concerns about density, growth, traffic, neighborhood character and development policy, they determined that those concerns did not provide a sufficient legal basis to overturn the approval. Motion: To affirm the decision of the City Council to approve the Willows Place Townhomes Planned Unit Development and to direct staff to prepare a written decision. o Moved by: Councilor Radford o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. Rescued: Francis o Motion carries. Council did not adopt the formal written decision that evening. Staff and the City Attorney planned to prepare the written findings, with the City Attorney noting that the City had until September 7 to issue the formal written decision. Because the matter remained subject to potential judicial review, Council members were reminded that the applicable ex parte restrictions remained in effect and that they should not privately discuss the case with interested parties. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM. /s/ Linda Lundquist_________________ /s/ Lisa Burtenshaw _____________ Linda Lundquist, City Clerk Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR IDAHO FALLS LISA BURTENSHAW MAYOR, CITY OF IDAHO FALLS 208.612.8235 | mayor@idahofalls.gov 30 July 2026 City Council City of Idaho Falls 308 Constitution Way Idaho Falls, ID 83402 Notice Pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-604: This special meeting of the Idaho Falls City Council is being convened to consider two requests for reconsideration submitted by members of the public regarding the Willows Place Townhomes PUD. This written notice is being provided to all members of the City Council in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 50-604. Lian Poududha Lisa Burtenshaw Mayor, City of Idaho Falls Cc: Linda Lundquist, City Clerk Zachary Jones, City Attorney P.O Box 50220 | 308 Constitution Way | Idaho Falls, Idaho, 83405-0220