Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper

City Council Meeting

minutes meeting date 2026-01-22 · fetched 2026-09-17 · 66902 characters · read by OCR, check numbers against the source · official file · plain text

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID

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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
•
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

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
•
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

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.).

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
•
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
•
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
•
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
•
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
•
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

City Council Meeting
Minutes

680 Park Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID
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.

January 22, 2026
Mayor and Members of the Idaho Falls City Council,

My name is David Rocknak, and | am a resident and taxpayer of Idaho Falls. | am here tonight to speak
regarding the proposed Willow Place Planned Unit Development and to respectfully request that the
Council postpone approval until critical issues of impact fee allocation, infrastructure capacity, and
neighborhood compatibility are fully addressed.

Under Idaho Code § 67-8201 through § 67-8211, impact fees exist to ensure that new development
pays its proportionate share of growth-related capital facilities, and that existing residents are not
required to subsidize the impacts of growth.

First, Growth and Housing Context. Idaho Falls currently has a population of approximately 69,500
residents and is growing at an estimated 2.1 percent annually. While growth is often cited to justify
increased residential density, growth alone does not relieve the City of its responsibility to ensure
that infrastructure, public safety, and neighborhood compatibility keep pace.

At present, market listings show approximately 380 to 400 apartments available for rent and 30 to 40
townhomes available within Idaho Falls. In addition, hundreds of apartment and townhome units are
already approved, under construction, or in the planning pipeline, including large multi-phase
developments previously reviewed by this Council.

This demonstrates that housing supply is actively expanding, even without immediate approval of
additional PUDs adjacent to established single-family neighborhoods.

Second, Income and Affordability Reality. The median household income in Idaho Falls is approximately
$69,600 per year. To place affordability into context: 1) a newly built townhome priced around
$350,000—consistent with recent approvals—results in an estimated monthly mortgage payment of
$1,800 to $1,950, excluding taxes, insurance, and HOA fees; 2) market-rate apartment rents commonly
range from $1,300 to $1,700 per month.

For many households earning near the median income, these housing costs already exceed commonly
accepted affordability thresholds. This reality heightens the importance of ensuring that development
fully funds its infrastructure impacts, rather than shifting costs onto existing residents.

Third, Adopted Impact Fees — Multifamily Townhouses. Under the City’s currently adopted impact fee
schedule, multi-family townhouse developments such as Willow Place are assessed impact fees
differently than single-family homes.

Transportation impact fees are assessed at approximately $1,440 per 1,000 square feet of residential
floor area. For typical townhome units ranging from 1,500 to 1,800 square feet, this equates to
roughly $2,160 to $2,600 per unit for transportation alone, in addition to police, fire/EMS, and parks

impact fees assessed under the multi-family categories.

Across a development the size of Willow Place, this represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in
impact fee revenue. Idaho law requires that these funds be clearly tied to specific, growth-related capital
improvements serving the development area.

Fourth, Transportation, Safety, and Infrastructure Impacts. The Willow Place PUD will add concentrated
traffic and service demand onto Bellin Road, Broadway Avenue, and Pancheri Drive. These corridors
already function as critical east-west routes for residents, emergency responders, and school traffic.

While individual multi-family units may generate fewer trips than detached homes, higher density
concentrates trips, particularly during peak hours. | respectfully request clarity on the following: 1) How
Willow Place transportation impact fees will be specifically allocated to improvements on Bellin Road,
Broadway, and Pancheri; 2) What capital improvements are planned and when they will be constructed;
and 3) How emergency access and response times will be preserved along Bellin Road given the added
density.

Impact fees are not intended for general system needs or to correct existing deficiencies—they must
address the incremental impacts created by this development.

Fifth, Land Use Compatibility and Planning Logic. The Willow Place PUD is proposed directly adjacent to a
well-established single-family neighborhood whose residents purchased their homes with the
reasonable expectation of low-density residential land use.

The City’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes compatibility between adjacent land uses, graduated
transitions in density, and protection of established neighborhoods.

Given those principles, | respectfully ask these questions. 1)what is the planning logic for placing a
higher-density PUD immediately adjacent to long-standing single-family homes, rather than along
arterial corridors or designated transition areas? 2) What enforceable measures are being required to
mitigate impacts related to traffic intrusion, parking, noise, and neighborhood character? And 3)How
does this proposal align with the City’s own Comprehensive Plan policies on density transitions?

Finally, Absent clear findings and enforceable mitigation. This proposal risks placing a disproportionate
burden on existing homeowners, contrary to both sound planning principles and Idaho law.

| respectfully request for postponement given the availability of apartments and townhomes, a
substantial pipeline of approved and under-construction units, the affordability challenges faced by
median-income households, and unresolved questions regarding impact fee allocation, infrastructure
delivery, and neighborhood compatibility,

| respectfully request that the Council postpone approval of the Willow Place PUD until impact fee
revenues are quantified and tied to specific capital improvement projects, transportation and emergency
service impacts on Bellin Road, Broadway, and Pancheri are fully documented; and density transition and
neighborhood compatibility findings are clearly articulated and enforceable.

In closing, this request is not anti-growth. It is a request for thoughtful, lawful, and equitable
planning that respects both future residents and those who already call this neighborhood home.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your service to the residents of Idaho Falls.

Respectfully submitted,
David Rocknak
Idaho Falls Resident and Taxpayer

. Setback variance reduces front yard privacy. The reduction <25 feet depart from the
R-1 standard and narrows the street-front buffer, possibly diminishing the visual
and privacy buffer for adjacent homes.

. Loss of established rear yard access for neighbors to the west of the site.

. Inadequate screening for existing adjacent properties. The proposed <20-foot
spacing of evergreen tree buffers may not sufficiently block sightlines into their
homes.

. Two-story height impacts the neighborhood character. The two-story dense design
introduces a more vertical profile than the bordering single-family homes that are
adjacent to the property.

. Potential stormwater and drainage issues. The existing gravity drainage that at
Belling and Plommon already struggles with moving storm water, leaving the
intersection flooded and requiring the City to send street department personnel to
remediate on a seasonal basis.

. The storm pond alternate use of a playground, hidden within the rear area of the
property does not convey usefulness to the surrounding community, and could
compromise the ponds primary flood-control function.

. The density calculation (1.815 acres for 14 units leaves no margin for error, and
slight measurement discrepancies could push the project over the allowable
density.

a. Theheight allowance hinges on a setback height tradeoff; that is not spelled
outin the ordinance.

Traffic study. The mostrecent published traffic study conducted by the City of
Idaho Falls was in 2019. Since that study, the immediate area has seen significant
development, increasing foot and vehicle traffic to a feeder road that is a two-lane
roadway both to the east and north of this project. See the Google Earth
attachments provided.

a. Westside Elementary morning drop off increases traffic both on Bellin and
Newman.

b. Westside morning kindergarten pickup increases traffic on Bellin, Newman
and Bluebird Lane.

c. Westside afternoon kindergarten pickup increases traffic on Bellin, Newman
and Bluebird Lane.

d. Westside afternoon all grades pickup increases stopped traffic from their
parking lot, east onto Newman, and continuing North onto Bellin, with parent
using the two lane Bellin Road area as a temporary parking lot waiting for
children to be released, forcing traffic traveling South to move into the
oncoming lane of traffic to move past Newman Drive

Wil

e. INL traffic coming out of the neighborhood in the mornings traveling to the
bus depot on Bellin near Maverick.

f. INL traffic coming into the neighborhood in the evenings traveling from the
bus depot on Bellin near Maverick.

g. The two-lane roadway (Old Butte Road) from Broadway to Pancheri, and
Pancheri to Bellin, both north and south, are not suited for current traffic
flow, and the increase of possibly 42 additional vehicles within 400 feet of
this project further encumbers traffic flow, particularly during the Eagle Rock
and Skyline starting and ending times. As well as the INL bus return, end of
day timeline.

9. Parking. Planned overflow parking may not be sufficient as planned, pushing the
additional parking out onto the street, competing with limited parking spaces, that
will compete with the two churches during the week. Existing examples of this
problem can be seen at the Pioneer Crossing development on Pioneer Road. Also
the existing development on St. Clair, between 25" street and Dwight as wellas a
similar development on Rippen Road off of Call Avenue.

10.The street name is not consistent with existing Swedish street names. The
exception is Bluebird Lane, which requires further explanation. It used to be a
Swedish name, but sounded risqué, so it was later changed to Bluebird.

Development Concerns - Summary
1. Setbacks & Privacy

Front-yard setback — The proposed < 25 ft setback falls short of the R-1 standard,
narrowing the street-front buffer and reducing visuaVprivacy protection for neighboring
homes.

Rear-yard access - Loss of an established rear-yard access route for the homes west of
the site.

Screening - Evergreen ivee buffers of only < 20 ft may not adequatety biock sighttines into

adjacent properties, providing insufficient screening.
2. Building Height & Neighborhood Character

Two-story height — Introducing a two-story, denser building creates a vertical profile that
conflicts with the predominantly single-family homes surrounding the property, potentially
altering the neighborhood’s character.

3. Storm-water & Drainage

Existing drainage strain —The current gravity-drain system at Bellin and Plommon already
struggles to move storm water, leading to seasonal flooding that requires city crews to
intervene.

Storin-pond atternate Use — The plan to locate a playground Within the fear of the storm
pond raises concerns about compromising the pond’s primary flood-control function and
its perceived usefulness to the community.

4. Density & Height Allowance

Density calculation — At 1.815 acres for 14 units, there is virtually no margin for error;
Minor Measurement discrepancies Could push the project over the allowable density limit.

Height-setback trade-off -The height allowance depends on a setback-height trade-off
thatis not clearly defined in the ordinance, creating uncertainty about compliance.

5. Traffic Impacts

Outdated traffic study -The most recent city-published traffic study (Idaho Falls) dates to

26738. Since inen, significant uevelopinent has increased bon pedestiian and venicutar
traffic on the nearby two-lane feeder roads (east and north of the site).

Schoot-related traffic - Westside Elementary generates additional traffic:

Morning drop-off: Bellin & Newman
Morning kindergarten pickup: Bellin, Newman, Bluebird Lane
Afternoon kindergarten pickup: same streets

Afternoon all-grades pickup: adds stopped traffic from the school lot onto Newman, then
north onto Bellin; parents often use Bellin Road as a temporary parking area, forcing
southbound traffic into the oncoming lane.

INL bus traffic - Morning inbound traffic from the INL bus depot (near Maverick) travels
onto Bellin; evening outbound traffic returns the same way.

Road capacity — Old Butte Road (Broadway © Pancheri and Pancheri © Bellin) is a
two-lane corridor thatis already ill-suited for current volumes. An estimated 42 additional
vehicles within 400 ft of the project would further congest the roadway, especially during
peak times (Eagle Rock & Skyline school start/end times and INL bus schedules).

6. Parking

Overflow parking — The planned overflow parking may be insufficient, pushing extra cars
onto the street. This would compete with limited on-street parking already used by two
nearby churches.

Comparabie sites — Simiiar parking pressures nave Deen observed ai:
Pioneer Crossing development (Pioneer Road)
The St. Clair development (between 25th St. and Dwight)

The Rippen Road development (off Call Avenue)

Historicallmagery < Jun 23,2017 > >!

*Westside. °
» eElementary’ School

Historicallmagery < Oct25,2019 > >I

Pre
yaad

2 ee Westside 7 *
» 4 \eEleméntary/School
' of '

Historical lmagery < Oct22, 2020 > >I

Westside
Elementary School

Historicallmagery < Jun7,2021 > >I

Westside’ @
.Elemeéntary’School ;

Historicallmagery < Jul23,2022 > >I

“*

Westside* @
» ayeeElementary’School ;

Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.