Idaho Falls council denies reconsideration of U Pick Redbarn conditional-use revocation

The Idaho Falls City Council on Monday voted to deny a request to reopen its earlier decision revoking a conditional-use permit for the business known in the record as U Pick Redbarn.

City Attorney Mike Kirkpatrick and Community Services Director Nate Stander presented the request for reconsideration and the issues raised by the applicant's attorney. Kirkpatrick summarized four legal arguments U Pick raised, including that the business lacked sufficient notice that revocation was possible, that U Pick is not a 'developer' under the city's bridge-and-street regulations and so cannot be required to dedicate right-of-way, that city staff communications narrowed the site-plan requirements, and that the dedication requirement may be an unconstitutional exaction for a temporary event.

Kirkpatrick told the council the central legal question about notice is 'given all the facts and circumstances, did [U Pick] have sufficient notice to know what they were being called in front of the government to address?' He noted two separate notices in the record: a director's letter identifying specific deficiencies and a Board of Adjustment mailing to adjacent property owners that described the hearing as 'a revocation of the conditional use permit issued on June 27 due to a failure to comply with the conditions of a permit for an agricultural tourism use.' Kirkpatrick said the council's written decision already found the notice adequate.

On the second issue, Kirkpatrick reviewed the city code (Title 10, chapter 2) and argued the city's existing ordinances apply broadly to land annexed to the city and to property that connects to an existing street. He said the code defines development in other parts of the municipal code in ways that encompass building permits and site improvements, and that U Pick's building permit and planned construction brought the site within the ordinance's obligations to dedicate right-of-way when development increases intensity on a property.

Kirkpatrick also described the applicant's argument that a 30-day compliance letter from a director amounted to permission to operate for 30 days; he said the 30 days required by the zoning code is a warning period to come into compliance, not a licensing period. He noted his September letter to the applicant that discussed landscaping and site-plan expectations and said the letter did not, and could not, change city law by itself: 'the lawmaking power is reserved to the city council.'

On the constitutional-exaction argument, Kirkpatrick said exactions must have a rational connection and rough proportionality to the government's burden; he recited testimony from the hearing that U Pick expected tens of thousands of visitors over its operating period and that nearby Rolling Road (as identified in the record) sees heavy traffic and safety concerns. That, he said, supported the city's requirement for right-of-way dedication as related to increased traffic from the intensified use.

After discussion, a councilor moved to deny reconsideration and direct staff to prepare a written denial. The motion passed on roll call: Bartonshoppe, Bradford, Damon, Freeman, Francis and Larson voted in favor; the motion carried. Council President (remote) was present earlier by roll call. Council did not reverse the revocation.

Kirkpatrick told the council the applicant's attorney has indicated a lawsuit has been filed (the city had not been formally served as of the meeting). The council's denial advances the administrative timeline: staff will prepare the written denial, which the applicant can use in any judicial review that follows.

Why this matters: The decision preserves the council's prior revocation of a conditional-use approval for a seasonal, intensifying agricultural-tourism use and reaffirms the city's reading of its development and right-of-way rules. The case raises recurring questions for local governments about how notice and administrative warnings interact with enforcement, how broadly 'development' is defined when businesses expand, and when exactions like right-of-way dedication are proportional to the public burden.

Council direction and next steps: Councilors asked staff to return with a written denial for formal adoption and for further legal analysis if needed. Staff noted the applicant had sought mediation but continued to reserve litigation rights.

Context and record: The council's discussion traced the record of the Board of Adjustment hearing, a November director's letter and a subsequent September letter from the city attorney summarizing a conversation about landscaping and site-plan items. The council vote to deny reconsideration was recorded by roll call; the clerk recorded unanimous support from the members present.

Ending note: The revocation and the denial of reconsideration do not eliminate the possibility of judicial review; the applicant's filing of a lawsuit was mentioned during the meeting. The council's written denial will be the next administrative document in that potential court record.