Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Idaho Falls board grants variance for police indoor shooting range
Summary
The Idaho Falls Board of Adjustments approved a variance Jan. 28 allowing a two-lane, premanufactured indoor shooting range at the Idaho Falls Police Complex to be sited closer than the code-required 600-foot setback from the nearest residence. Staff recommended approval; supporters said the range will improve training and reduce costs.
On Jan. 28, 2025, the Idaho Falls Board of Adjustments approved a variance permitting a premanufactured indoor shooting range to be installed at the Idaho Falls Police Complex at Northgate Mile closer than the city's 600-foot minimum setback from the nearest residential dwelling.
Staff and the applicant told the board the two-lane, 25-yard container-style range would be used for pistol and some rifle training and routine qualifications for department staff. City planning staff recommended approval after concluding the proposal would not conflict with the public interest or create a nuisance to the neighborhood as proposed.
The applicant, identified in the record as Anthony, described the proposed unit as a premanufactured container range with two rifle-rated lanes, a monorail target system, a granulated-rubber bullet trap, AR-style armored plating, insulation and an HVAC/filtration system the manufacturer says meets OSHA and EPA requirements. Anthony said the department would use the range for regular qualifications and quarterly firearms training, and that the facility would be in a secured area of the police complex.
City planning staff told the board the application, filed Dec. 5, 2024, met code requirements except for the minimum 600-foot residential setback. Staff cited the shape of the parcel, existing buildings, parking and a storm pond as constraints that create a practical hardship and said the proposed location is the most feasible placement on site. The staff report explicitly recommended approval of the variance as presented.
Staff and applicant discussed noise controls. The staff report and applicant noted the city's noise ordinance standard of 65 decibels at the property line and said manufacturers indicate container ranges are designed with armor, insulation and acoustic treatments; staff said property separation and nearby railroad tracks would likely make train noise the larger audible impact for some nearby residences. The applicant and a resident who spoke in favor said similar ranges and an existing commercial range in town are not readily audible beyond their building exteriors. A resident who identified themselves as a longtime Idaho Falls resident said, based on prior experience operating a five-lane range, that outside the building firing sounds like "popcorn" rather than a distinct gunshot.
The applicant provided an operational estimate: a typical qualifying and training regimen would use roughly 300 rounds per officer per year for pistol training, and the department would continue to use an external range for long-distance rifle work. The applicant also said using an on-site container range would reduce travel and weather limitations that now affect off-site training shared with other agencies.
During deliberations board members asked about testing for the 65-decibel limit at the property line and about the expected frequency of use; staff said decibel testing can be performed and that specific property-line measurement points would be determined by the site plan. Board members who spoke indicated support, noting the location on the complex and the project's cost savings compared with constructing a full brick-and-mortar range.
A board member made a motion to approve the variance as submitted; another board member seconded the motion. The board voted in favor and approved both the variance and the related statement of relevant criteria for the variance.
The application record indicates the property owner allows an indoor shooting range use; the staff report and public comments described the installation as a secure, manufacturer-built container system with a manufacturer service and warranty plan. The exact manufacturer, delivery schedule and a property-line noise test date were not specified in the hearing record.
Next steps noted in the meeting: the board approved the variance and the statement of relevant criteria; staff and the police department will follow construction permitting, site-work (footings/foundation), and any required lead remediation or trap replacement procedures under the manufacturer's maintenance plan. The hearing record does not specify an installation or operation start date.
