04.03.2025 City Council Packet
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 1 of 44
1.
i.
ii.
2.
i.
ii.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
1.
17
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 2 of 44
1.
i.
ii.
2.
i.
ii.
1.
1.
27
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 3 of 44
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2.
37
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 4 of 44
3.
47
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 5 of 44
4.
1.
57
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 6 of 44
2.
3.
.
.
5.
67
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 7 of 44
1.
2.
1.
77
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 8 of 44
Ammon City Council Meeting
April 3, 2025
Mayor Coletti and City Council Members:
Bridgewater Property Reconsideration Request
Staff Presenting:
Cindy Donovan Planning Director
Summary of Analysis:
1.On March 10, 2025, the City received a Request to Reconsider the denial of the Bridgewater
Property Rezone Application.
2.Today, the Claimant has the opportunity to present his arguments for reconsideration.
3.Public Hearing #2024-019 and Public Hearing #2025-001 have both been closed. Therefore, no
additional evidence can be presented.
4.Planning and Zoning Commission:
-On November 6, 2024 the Commission held Public Hearing #2024-019
-Testimony was presented by two people in favor and two people in opposition
-The Commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote of 8-0
-The Commission provided the following Reasoned Statement:
Compliant with land use policies for infill development
R1-A zoning exists within the neighborhood
Harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan
5.City Council:
- Voted to approve the rezone on November 21, 2024 with a 4 2 vote
-On December 5, 2024 Ordinance #728 and the Findings of Fact were presented City
Council tabled these items to consider the possibility of having a Public Hearing
-On December 12, 2024 the Action Item of Consideration of a Public Hearing was tabled
-On December 19, 2024 the City Council approved holding a Public Hearing on January 16,
2025 with a 5-1 vote
-Public Hearing #2025-001 was held before the City Council on January 16, 2025. Testimony
was presented from the applicant, five letters were received in favor, there were two who
testified as neutral, and two testified in opposition. There was no action taken regarding a
decision after the public hearing.
-On February 6, 2025 the City Council voted to deny the Bridgewater Property Rezone.
-On March 13, 2025 the City Council was advised of receipt of the letter requesting
reconsideration of the decision regarding the Bridgewater Property Rezone.
Record:
All information, testimony, letters, and recordings submitted from Public Hearing #2024-019
and #2025-001 were made part of the record for consideration.
Parcel Characteristics:
-General Location: north of Greenwillow Lane, east of Red Robin Avenue, south of Lincoln Road,
west of Ammon Road
-Acres: 4.467 acres
-Current Zoning: PSC
2135 South Ammon Rd., Ammon, Idaho 83406 City Hall: (208) 612-4000
www.cityofammon.us Page | 1
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 9 of 44
City Council Hearing:
-Public Hearing #2025-001 was held before the Council on January 16, 2025
-Testimony: 2 people testified as neutral, 2 people testified in opposition
City Council Notice of Hearing:
-Notice was published in the Post Register on December 28, 2024
-Notice was mailed to 54 property owners and 20 public entities on December 30, 2024
-Property was posted on Monday, January 6, 2025
-Public comment: Received 5 letters in favor
Motion: The City Council may take any of the following proposed actions or other action as it chooses:
I move to reaffirm the decision reached by the City Council dated February 6, 2025, and deny
the Motion for Reconsideration.
I move to approve the rezone application as submitted.
I move to take this matter under advisement and to issue a written decision on the Motion for
Reconsideration at a later date.
Attachments:
1.Bridgewater Property Reconsideration Request
2135 South Ammon Rd., Ammon, Idaho 83406 City Hall: (208) 612-4000
www.cityofammon.us Page | 2
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 10 of 44
350 Memorial Drive, Suite 300Jon A. Stenquist
A Professional
Law Corporation
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402
Attorney at Law
Main 208.522.6700Direct 208.528.5228
Fax 208.522.5111JStenquist@parsonsbehle.com
March 10, 2025
VIACERTIFIEDMAILANDEMAIL
City of AmmonCity Council
Attn:Micah Austin, City Administrator
Kristina Buchan, City Clerk
2135 South Ammon Road
Ammon, Idaho 83406
maustin@cityofammon.us
kbuchan@cityofammon.us
Scott R. Hall
Nelson Hall Parry Tucker, PLLC
490 Memorial Drive
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
srhall@nhptlaw.net
Re:Request to Reconsider February 20, 2025Denial of Bridgewater Property
RezoneApplication
DearAmmon City Council,
This firm represents Caliber Customs, LLC, and we are writing on
behalf of our client to request that the Ammon City Council
1
25, 2025 denialof.
Factual and Procedural Background
As you are aware, last fall, Caliber Customs submitted thecompleted Application for a
rezone of4.467 acres from PSCZone(Parks, Schools, and Churches)to R-1ResidenceZone
(1.484 acres) and R1-AResidenceZone (2.983 acres)for the purpose of developing a parcel of
property that has been vacant for over 15 years into a residential neighborhood comprised of
both single family residences and twin homes.
1
Application, is dated February 20, 2025, the attendant Certificate of Service is dated February 25, 2025, thereby
beginning the clock for a request for reconsideration under I.C. § 67-6535.
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 11 of 44
4924-7762-2566.v2
March 10, 2025
Page Two
Following submittal of the Application, a public hearing (Public Hearing No. 2024-019)
was held before the Ammon City Planning and Zoning Commission. And
following that public hearing, the Commission unanimously recommended the Council approve
the Application.
The Council first considered the Application during its November 21, 2024 City Council
Meeting, wherein the Council reviewed and addressed the staff report prepared for
review. The report provides, in relevant part, that only
further providesommission recommended approval with a unanimous vote of 8-0
Id.It then describesCompliant with land use policies for infill
development;R1-A zoning exists within the neighborhood; \[and\] Harmonious with the
Comprehensive PlanId.
to approve the Application during its November 21, 2024 meeting. However, the Council did not
vote to amend the operative ordinance during that meeting, nor did it adopt findings of fact or
conclusions of law.
At the next City Council meeting on December 5, 2024, as itwas preparing to vote to
amend the zoning ordinance, the Council, despite having voted to approve the Applicationtwo
weeks prior, reopened its deliberations,and several Council members expressed concerns that
the decision to approve the Application was made in erroreven though no appeal of the original
decision had been made by any party.Among other vague references to media reports and self-
conducted site visits, some members of the Councilindicated (without citing any authority)that
thecurrent
approved for the zoning requested in the Application. Other members felt that an additional
public hearing was necessary to conduct more fact gathering and get a fuller pictureof the
.Accordingly, several members of the Council elected tounilaterallyreverse
their earlier votes, and the Council, limited tothree possible decisions (approve, deny, or table),
decided to table its decision on the Application until its next Council meeting, scheduled for
December 12, 2024.
OnDecember 12, 2024, the Council again unilaterally deliberated the Application and,
despite failing to cite anylegal authority during its deliberations as to why the Application
should be reviewed, let alone be denied, decided that they needed to review the recordings of the
few public comments (that were addressed to the Commission and summarized for Council) for
themselves. And the Application was again, presumably, tabled.
Another City Council meeting was held on December 19, 2024, during which the Council
unilaterally considered the Application once more. During that meeting, the Council members
who voiced opposition to the Application again expressed nebulousconcerns about the rezone
designation. The Council again failed to cite any Ammon City Code ordinance, state statute, or
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 12 of 44
4924-7762-2566.v2
March 10, 2025
Page Three
other binding authority to support its reasoning for believing that the approved Application
should later be denied. It settled on the perplexing decision to hold a de novo public hearing
rather than re-approve or denytheonce-approved Application at that stage.
Consequently, the new unilateral public hearing was scheduled and called before the
Council on January 16, 2025, where the applicant and various members of the public testified in
favor ofand in opposition to the Application. The Council considered these public comments
during its February 6, 2025 meeting, and (once again failing to city any ordinance, statute, or
2
other binding authority) voted to deny the once-approved Application.
In its writtenrendered
February 25, 2025, the Council found the Application not tobe in compliance with the following
conclusoryremarkThis Ammon Comprehensive Plan is
intended to guidedevelopment in the City of Ammon in a manner that achieves the shared vision
expressed by its citizens for the future of their city, their communities, andtheir neighborhoods.
(Decision, pg. 2). The Decision does not articulate a single reason why the Application fails to
comply with this quoted section of the Comprehensive Plan. It simply states that the Application
is not compliant without any explanation, reasoning, code citation, or rationale whatsoever.
The Decision similarly states that the Application does not comply with the general
objectives of Chapter 13 RP-
noncompliance with the RP-
to R-1 and R-1A), but this supposed noncompliance is also utterly unsupported by any rationale
or authority.
Request for Reconsideration
Under Idaho Code §67-6535, our client is entitled to request reconsideration of the
denying the Application. That statute provides:
The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to this
chapter shall be in writing and accompaniedby a reasoned statementthat
explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant
contested facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based
on the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance
and statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional principles and factual
information contained in the record.
2
We note that Councilmember Slack moved to approve the Application, but lacking a second, the motion failed.
Following a motion to deny the Application, Councilmember Slack cast the only vote in opposition to the denial.
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 13 of 44
4924-7762-2566.v2
March 10, 2025
Page Four
(a)Failure to identify the nature of compliance or noncompliance with express
approval standards or failure to explain compliance or noncompliance with
relevant decision criteria shall be grounds for invalidation of an approved permit
or site-specific authorization, or denial of same, on appeal.
I.C. § 67-6535(2) (emphases added).
Weand our client believe that the Councilerred in issuing its Decision, first because the
Decision does§67-
6535(2)(a). The Idaho Supreme Court explained the purpose behind requiring a reasoned
statement in Jasso v. Camas County:
The requirement of meaningful administrativefindingsservesimportant
functions, including facilitating judicial review, avoiding judicial usurpation of
administrative functions, assuring more careful administrative consideration,
helping parties plan their cases for rehearing and judicial review and keeping
within their jurisdiction.
Jasso v. Camas County151 Idaho 790, 794, 264 P.3d 897, 901 (2011)(quotingIdaho
Underground Water Users Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co.,89 Idaho 147, 156, 404 P.2d 859, 863
(1965)).
The Jasso Court analyzed and opined onseveral instances where local governing
authorities issued deficient written decisions:
In Crown Point Development, Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, the purported findings of
the city council were merely recitations of portions of the record, rather than
determinations of the facts disputed by the parties. 144 Idaho 72, 7778, 156 P.3d
573, 57879 (2007).
This Court found the findingsto be inadequate. Id.In Workman Family
Partnership v. City of Twin Falls, the city councils factual findings explained that
are basically conclusions. Nothing ... reveals the underlying facts or policies that
were considered by the Council. The reasons listed ... provide very little insight
Cooper v. Board
of County Commissioners of Ada County, the Court held that a board of county
commissioners' findings and conclusions, supplemented by a staff report that
stated some of the shortcomings for which the application was denied, were
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 14 of 44
4924-7762-2566.v2
March 10, 2025
Page Five
101 Idaho 407, 40809, 614 P.2d 947, 94849 (1980).
Id. At the end of the discussion, we provided a summary of what a reasoned
decision must consist of:
These cases demonstrate that the reasoned statement must plainly state the
resolution of factual disputes, identify the evidence supporting that factual
determination, and explain the basis for legal conclusions, including
identification of the pertinent laws and/or regulations upon which the
legal conclusions rest.
Id.(emphasis added).
N. W. Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Boise, 172 Idaho 607, 535 P.3d 583, 591 (2023).
Neither a review of the written Decision nor a review of the minutes from the various
City Council meetings do anything toclarify the concerns of city council membersor the public
comment, nor does the record present the factual disputes or identify evidence supporting a
factual statement to permit a supported basis for legal conclusions given.The Decision is a
quintessential arbitrary and capricious action taken by a land use authority in violation of I.C. §
67-5279. And itcertainly appears from the record that the Decision was driven more by the
personal animus ofcertain Council members than by any legally supported basis for their
opposition.
Furthermore, Caliber Customs asserts that the Decision is also in error because it is
arbitrary, capricious, andan abuse ofdiscretion. We remind the Council of its
quasi-judicial obligations to afford due process to applicants such as Caliber Customs. When
municipal agencies act in their quasi-
, 867 P.2d
individuals, interests or situations, and are quasi-judicial in nature they are subject to due process
., 148 P.3d 1247, 1256 (Idaho 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The Council must ensure its decisions are rendered constitutionally, under the appropriate
grant of authority, supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and germane to
our concerns, is not an arbitrary, capricious, or abusive decision. See generallyI.C. §67-5279(3).
We are aware that in the numerousdeliberations, several of the City Council members expressed
concerns that in rendering a decision on the Application the Council members should be
advocates for or a voice of their various constituencies. However, during a rezoning application,
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 15 of 44
4924-7762-2566.v2
March 10, 2025
Page Six
the Council is not acting its legislative capacity (under which bias and advocacy may be
warrantedand invoked), but in itsquasi-judicial capacity. As such, the Council must afford
applicants their due process rightsand adjudicate on established law, not on emotion.
Based on the above, please take this correspondence as
officialrequest for reconsideration underIdaho Code §67-6535.
Pursuant to the requirements of the and Idaho Law, please ensure that the
the Applicationis
completed within 60 days of the receipt of this letter.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Regards,
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
Jon A. Stenquist
Attorney at Law
JAS:sdh
cc: Caliber Customs
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 16 of 44
4924-7762-2566.v2
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 17 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 18 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 19 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 20 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 21 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 22 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 23 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 24 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 25 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 26 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 27 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 28 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 29 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 30 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 31 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 32 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 33 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 34 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 35 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 36 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 37 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 38 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 39 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 40 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 41 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 42 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 43 of 44
Ammon City Council 04.03.2025Page 44 of 44
