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

City Council Work Session

agenda meeting date 2026-10-19 · fetched 2026-10-18 · 106775 characters · read by OCR, check numbers against the source · official file · plain text

Page 1 of 3
COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
City of Idaho Falls
City Council Meeting
680 Park Avenue
Monday
October 19, 2026
3:00 P.M.
Mayor
City Council
Jim Francis
Council President, Seat 4
John Radford
Council Seat 5
Kirk Larsen
Council Seat 3
Brandon Lee
Council Seat 2
Jim Freeman
Council Seat 6
Michelle Ziel-Dingman
Council Seat 1
Lisa Burtenshaw
Livestream at www.idahofallsidaho.gov/429/Live-Stream

Work Session
Agenda
Council Chambers
3:00 PM
Monday, October 19, 2026
The public is invited to attend in person or watch via the livestream at https://www.idahofallsidaho.gov/429/Live-Stream.
This meeting may be cancelled or recessed to a later time in accordance with law. If you need communication aids or other
physical accommodations to attend or access this meeting, please contact Linda Lundquist, City Clerk, at (208) 612-8414 or
Lisa Farris, ADA Coordinator, at (208) 612-8323 prior to the meeting.
1.
Call to Order & Roll Call
2.
Agenda
A)
Office of the Mayor
1)
Mayor and Council Reports: Announcements, liaison reports,
events, calendaring, citywide updates, concerns, questions,
proclamations, notes and/or minutes from boards and
commissions (20)
Council Direction to staff (or take other appropriate action)
26-397
IFDDC Minutes July 2026
IFDDC Minutes August 2026
10-6-26 PC Action
White Cane Safety Awareness Day 2026
Attachments:
B)
Community Development Services:
1)
Starter Home Subdivision Code Revision review (30)
26-406
The Idaho Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1352 relating to housing, which establishes
provisions for starter home subdivisions. The legislation prohibits cities from enacting or
enforcing ordinances that ban starter home subdivisions within residential zoning areas under
their jurisdiction.
On August 27 and September 22, 2026, the City of Idaho Falls Starter Home Subdivision
Committee met to discuss the legislation and assisted in developing an ordinance with staff to
address the new requirements. The attached ordinance reflects the committee’s work and
recommendations for implementation within the City of Idaho Falls.
Page 2 of 3
Council direction to staff (or take other appropriate action)

Work Session
Agenda
October 19, 2026
Ordinance
Senate Bill 1352
Minutes 8-27-26
Minutes 9-22-26
Attachments:
C)
City Attorney
1)
Executive Session (40)
26-405
This executive session is to communicate with legal counsel for the City to discuss the legal
ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being
litigated but imminently likely to be litigated.
Council will reconvene after this session.
To call an executive session pursuant to Idaho Code § 74-206(1)(f) to communicate with legal
counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for
pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated.
Action Item(s):
2)
Settlement Agreement for City v. Van Deventers (5)
26-413
Action Item(s):
Grant authority to the City Attorney to negotiate and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute a settlement agreement with Karen and John Van Deventer (or take other
appropriate action).
3.
Announcements
4.
Adjournment
Page 3 of 3

DATE:
Monday, October 5, 2026
AGENDA:
Work Session
FROM:
Mayor Burtenshaw
DEPARTMENT: Mayor's Office
Title
..title
Mayor and Council Reports: Announcements, liaison reports, events, calendaring, citywide updates, concerns,
questions, proclamations, notes and/or minutes from boards and commissions (20)
Council Direction to staff (or take other appropriate action)
Memorandum
File # 26-397 Work Session

IDAHO FALLS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

Date
July 14, 2026
Time
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Location
Idaho Falls Arts Council – Willard Arts Center, 498 A Street, Idaho Falls,
ID, 2nd Floor
Called By
Chip Langerak, Board Chair
Prepared By
Kerry Hammon, Executive Director
Secretary
Jill Hansen, Board Secretary

Attendance
Board of Directors
Name
Role
Chip Langerak
Board Chair
Jill Hansen
Board Secretary

Kevin Cutler
Board Member, Immediate Past President
Mark Cornelison
Board Member
Justin Morris
Board Member
Brandi Newton
Board Member, Treasurer
Terri Ireland
Board Member
Gray Augustus
Board Member

Staff

Kerry Hammon – Executive Director

Juan Hernandez – Staff

Geetika Gupta – Staff

Cheryl Bailer – Intern

Ian Hurst--Intern
City of Idaho Falls

Caitlin Long

Jim Francis
Guests

Alexa Langerak
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Board Chair Chip Langerak. A quorum of board
members was confirmed.
2. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
The minutes from the June 9, 2026, Board of Directors meeting were presented for review.
Motion: Terri Ireland moved to approve the June 9, 2026 meeting minutes as presented.
Second: Gray Augustus
Vote: No opposition. Motion Approved.
3. Approval of Previous Financials
The May 31, 2026, financial statements were presented for review by the Treasurer.
Motion: Brandi Newton moved to approve May 31, 2026, financials as presented.

Second: Mark Cornelison
Vote: No opposition. Motion Approved.
4. Merchant Association Update
An update on the Merchant Association was provided. Key items discussed:

Merchant Association meetings will be held on the 1st Wednesday of each month,
10:00 – 11:00 a.m., in the conference room at 447 Park Ave (next to Marcellar's).

Downtown businesses are actively working to address graffiti problems, with a
commitment to remove graffiti as soon as it is identified.
5. City of Idaho Falls Update
No formal City update was provided as Lisa was not in attendance at this meeting.
Caitlin Long distributed new brochures for the Downtown Walking Tour. A digital version of the
walking tour brochures is forthcoming.
Board Action Items Summary
► BOARD ACTION — Approval of June 9, 2026, Minutes

Motion:
Terri Ireland
Second:
Gray Augustus
Vote:
Approved — No opposition

► BOARD ACTION — Approval of May 31, 2026, Financials

Motion:
Brandi Newton
Second:
Mark Cornelison
Vote:
Approved — No opposition

Next Meeting
The next Board of Directors meeting is scheduled for:
Tuesday, August 11, 2026 — 9:00 a.m.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

Idaho Falls Downtown Development
Corporation
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

Date
August 11, 2026
Time
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Location
Idaho Falls Arts Council – Willard Arts Center, 498 A Street, Idaho Falls,
ID, 2nd Floor
Called By
Chip Langerak, Board Chair
Prepared By
Kerry Hammon, Executive Director
Secretary
Jill Hansen, Board Secretary

Attendance
Board Members Present
Name
Role
Chip Langerak
Board Chair
Jill Hansen
Board Secretary
Justin Morris
Board Member
Brandi Newton
Board Member, Treasurer

Terri Ireland
Board Member
Gray Augustus
Board Member

IFDDC Staff

Kerry Hammon - Executive Director

Geetika Gupta - Staff

Ian Hurst - Staff
City of Idaho Falls

Lisa Farris

Jim Francis
Guests

Whitney Holmes

Jim Fletcher

Natalie Kern

Alexa Langerak
Process Review
1 - Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM by Board Chair Chip Langerak. A quorum was
confirmed present.
2 - Roll Call / Attendance
Board members present, absent, and guests were recorded as noted above.
3 - Approval / Amendment of Agenda
Chip Langerak moved to amend the meeting agenda as follows:

Adding Elections as Item 5

Moving the Financial Report to Item 6

Moving the Executive Director's Report to Item 7

Moving Public Comments to the end as Item 8
Motion: Chip Langerak | Second: Brandi Newton | Vote: Approved unanimously
4 - Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes
Brandi Newton moved to defer approval of the July 14, 2026, meeting minutes until a formal
version is available for review.

Motion: Brandi Newton | Second: Justin Morris | Vote: Approved unanimously
Agenda Items
5 - Elections (Added per agenda amendment)
Chip Langerak moved to elect Matt Jacobsen as the new President of the Board of Directors,
effective immediately. Chip Langerak will transition into the role of Past President; the Board
will determine the full responsibilities and scope of that position.
Motion: Chip Langerak | Second: Brandi Newton | Vote: Approved unanimously
6 - Financial Report | Presenter: Brandi Newton, Treasurer
Brandi Newton reviewed the June 30, 2026, financials with the Board.
Motion: Brandi Newton moved to approve the financials as presented | Second: Matt Jacobsen
| Vote: Approved unanimously
7 - Executive Director's Report | Presenter: Kerry Hammon, Executive
Director
Update on organizational activities, programs, and initiatives since the last meeting:

501(c)(3) Foundation Update (Geetika Gupta): Working with an artist to explore
bringing two new art pieces downtown and identifying prime locations for installation.
Work continues on the utility box wrapping project; applications are currently open for
artists interested in having their artwork featured on downtown utility boxes.

Food Truck Committee: Kerry Hammon will establish a committee for downtown food
trucks, with Gray Augustus serving as the committee lead.

Way-Finding Signage: Kerry is working on improving downtown way-finding signage to
make navigation easier for visitors.

BID Advisory Group: Kerry is working with the BID Advisory Group, which plans to meet
twice monthly.

Parking Initiative: The parking initiative is progressing. Kerry is actively utilizing the data
system to analyze parking statistics and generate analytical reports.

Budget and Beautification: The budget will be a primary focus. The Executive Board will
review the budget prior to presenting it to the full Board. In October, Kerry will present
quotes for the beautification project.

Events: Footloose is going very well with high attendance; partnership and continuation
with the program will continue.
8 - City of Idaho Falls Update | Presenters: Lisa Farris and Jim Francis

Facade Funds (Lisa Farris): City Council approved $32,000 for 2026 facade funds for new
projects, with several signage projects currently in progress.

Parking Violations (Jim Francis): Jim Francis is working with the City Attorney to
establish a formal process for collecting outstanding parking tickets.

9 - Announcements
Board member announcements, upcoming events, and community updates.
10 - Next Meeting Date
Confirmed: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 - 9:00 AM - Idaho Falls Arts Council (IFAC)
11 - Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 AM.
Board Action Items Summary
Board Action - Item 3: Approval / Amendment of Agenda
Motion: Chip Langerak Second: Brandi Newton Vote: Approved unanimously
Board Action - Item 4: Defer Approval of July 14, 2026, Minutes
Motion: Brandi Newton Second: Justin Morris Vote: Approved unanimously
Board Action - Item 5: Election of Matt Jacobsen as Board President
Motion: Chip Langerak Second: Brandi Newton Vote: Approved unanimously
Board Action - Item 6: Approval of June 30, 2026, Financials
Motion: Brandi Newton Second: Matt Jacobsen Vote: Approved unanimously
Action Items
Action Item
Responsible Party
Due
Establish Food Truck Committee
Kerry Hammon
TBD
Lead Food Truck Committee
Gray Augustus
TBD
Executive Board to review budget before full
Board presentation
Executive Board
Prior to next
meeting
Present beautification project quotes
Kerry Hammon
October 2026
Establish formal process for collecting
outstanding parking tickets
Jim Francis / City
Attorney
TBD

Planning Commission took the following action during the October 6, 2026, meeting.

ANX26-009: ANNEXATION and INITIAL ZONING of I&M, Industrial and
Manufacturing for approximately .440 acres in the SW ¼ of Section 36, Township 2
North, Range 37 East. Located north of W 65th South, east of S 15th West, and south of
Professional Way. On October 6, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of the annexation and initial zoning of I&M to the Mayor and City
Council as presented.

ANX26-010: ANNEXATION and INITIAL ZONING of R3, Multiple Dwelling
Residential with the Controlled Development Airport Overlay Zone for approximately
35.867 acres in the SE ¼ of Section 23 and the NE ¼ of Section 26, Township 2 North,
Range 37 East. Located north of W 17th South, east of Grizzly Avenue, south of Pancheri
Drive, and west of S Skyline Drive. On October 6, 2026, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the annexation and initial zoning of R2 along the northern part of
the annexation and with R3 along the southern portion to the Mayor and City Council with a
vote of 4 to 3.

PLT26-025: FINAL PLAT for Harvest Village Division No. 1. SE ½ of the SW ¼ of
Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E 65th North, east of Glen
Abby Lane, south of Commons Road, and west of the Idaho Canal. On October 6, 2026, the
Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final plat to the
Mayor and City Council as presented.

PLT26-026: PRELIMINARY PLAT for EZ Exteriors Division No. 1. SW ¼ of Section
36, Township 2 North, Range 37 East. Located north of W 65th South, east of S 15th West,
south of Professional Way, and west of S Yellowstone Avenue. On October 6, 2026, the
Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve of the preliminary plat as presented.

Honorable Mayor and Council
Wade Sanner, Community Development Services Director
October 7, 2026
October 6, 2026, Planning Commission Action

6.
RZN26-005: REZONE from RE, Residential Estate to RP, Residential Park. 1.062
Acres in the NE Corner of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 31, Township 2 North,
Range 38 East. Located north of Castlerock Lane, east of Canterbury Way, south of
Kinswood Street, and west of S Holmes Avenue. On October 6, 2026, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezone from RE to RP to the Mayor and
City Council as presented with a vote of 5 to 1.

RZN26-006: REZONE from LC, Limited Commercial to RMH, Residential Mobile
Home Zone. SE ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E
33rd North, east of N Boulevard, south of the Hatch Pit, and west of N 5th East. On October
6, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the rezone
from LC to RMH to the Mayor and City Council as presented.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: To receive recommendation(s) from the Planning and Zoning
Commission pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA).

PROCLAMATION
ee

by an October 6, 1964, joint resolution by the U.S. Congress, October 15 is designated as the day
celebrating the independence, achievements, and safety of individuals who are blind or visually
impaired; and

the white cane has become a symbol in society identifying individuals who are blind or visually

impaired; and

White Cane Safety Day provides an opportunity to educate the public about the significance of the
white cane to blind or visually impaired individuals and the importance of pedestrian safety and the
rights of individuals traveling with white canes, or guide dogs; and

WHEREAS, the white cane, and guide dog, allow blind or visually impaired persons to move freely and safely
from place to place, making it possible to fully participate in and contribute to our community; and

WHEREAS, the white cane, and guide dog, which every blind citizen has the right to utilize, demonstrates and

symbolizes independence; and

WHEREAS, Idaho law calls upon employers, both public and private, to be aware of and uulize the employment
skills of our blind citizens by recognizing their productive capacities; and

Idaho law also requires that motorists and cyclists exercise appropriate caution when approaching a

blind person carrying a white cane or uulizing a guide dog; and

the City of Idaho Falls would like to recognize the efforts of the National Federation of the Blind
of Idaho Snake River Valley Chapter for their advocacy efforts and in promoting the safety, welfare,

and independence of blind persons in our conununity.

NOW THEREFORE, I, LISA BURTENSHAW, MAYOR of the City of Idaho Falls, do hereby proclaim October

15, 2026, to be

White Cane Safety Awareness Day

In the City of Idaho Falls and encourage this comununity to promote accessibility, celebrate independence, and

recognize the rights and contributions of our blind or visually impaired community members.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto set my
hand and caused the seal of the City of Idaho Falls to be
affixed on this 9" day of October Two Thousand

‘Twenty-six.

Lia Pawcadaw!

Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor

City of Idaho Falls

DATE:
Thursday, October 8, 2026
AGENDA:
Work Session
FROM:
Wade Sanner, Director
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Services
Title
..title
Starter Home Subdivision Code Revision review (30)
..end
Description, Background Information, Purpose:
..body
The Idaho Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1352 relating to housing, which establishes provisions for starter
home subdivisions. The legislation prohibits cities from enacting or enforcing ordinances that ban starter
home subdivisions within residential zoning areas under their jurisdiction.
On August 27 and September 22, 2026, the City of Idaho Falls Starter Home Subdivision Committee met to
discuss the legislation and assisted in developing an ordinance with staff to address the new requirements.
The attached ordinance reflects the committee’s work and recommendations for implementation within the
City of Idaho Falls.
..This item has been reviewed by the Mayor’s Office.
Memorandum
File # 26-406
Council direction to staff (or take other appropriate action)

TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING

11-2-3: ALLOWED USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
Table 11-2-1: Allowed Uses in Residential Zones

P = permitted use. C1 = administrative conditional use. C2 = Board of Adjustment conditional use. C3 = City Council conditional
use. A blank denotes a use that is not allowed in that zone.
*Indicates uses that are subject to specific land use provisions set forth in the Standards for Allowed Land Uses Section of this
Chapter.
Residential
Proposed Land Use Classification
RE
RP
R1
R2
TN
RMH
R3
R3A
Accessory Use
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Agriculture*
P
Animal Care Clinic*
P*
P
Artist Studio
P*
Bed and Breakfast*
P
Boarding /Rooming House
P
P
Day Care, Center*
C2
C2
C2
P
P
P
P
Day Care, Group*
C1
C1
C1
P
P
C1
P
P
Day Care, Home
C1
C1
C1
P
P
C1
P
P
Dwelling, Accessory Unit*
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Dwelling, Multi-Unit*
P*
P
P
P
Dwelling, Multi-Unit Attached*
P
P
P
P
Dwelling, Single Unit Attached*
P
P
P
P
P
P
Dwelling, Single Unit Detached
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Dwelling, Two Unit
P
P
P
P
Eating Establishment, Limited
P*
P
Financial Institutions
P*
P
Food Processing, Small Scale
P*
P
Food Store
P*
P
Fuel Station
P*
Health Care and Social Services
P*
P
Home Occupation*
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
Information Technology
P
Live-Work*
C1
P
Manufactured Home*
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Mobile Home Park*
P
C2
Mortuary
P
Park and Recreation Facility*
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Parking Facility
P
Personal Service
P*
P
Planned Unit Development*
C3
C3
C3
C3
C3
C3
C3
C3
Professional Service
P
P
Public Service Facility*
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
Public Service Facility, Limited
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Public Service Use
P
Recreational Vehicle Park*
P

TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING

Proposed Land Use Classification
RE
RP
R1
R2
TN
RMH
R3
R3A
Religious Institution*
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
Residential Care Facility
P
P
Retail
P*
C2
School
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
Short Term Rental*
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Starter Home Subdivision
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Transit Station
P
(Ord. 3218, 9-13-18) (Ord. 3358, 12-10-20) (Ord. 3451, 3-31-22) (Ord. 3458, 4-14-22)
(Ord. 3496, 12-8-22) (Ord.3574, 6-13-24) (Ord. 3619, 7-31-25)

TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING

11-2-4: ALLOWED USES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES.
Table 11-2-2: Allowed Uses in Commercial Zones

P
Drive-through Establishment *
P*
P
P
P
P
Dry Cleaning
P
Dwelling, Accessory Unit *
P
P
P
P
Dwelling, Multi-Unit*
P
P
P
Dwelling, Multi-Unit Attached*
P
P
P
Dwelling, Single Unit Attached*
P
Dwelling, Single Unit Detached
P
Dwelling, Two Unit
P
P
Eating Establishment
P
P
P
P
Eating Establishment, Limited
P
P
P
P
P
Financial Institutions
P
P
P
P
P
Entertainment and Cultural Facilities
P
P
P
P
P
Equipment Sales, Rental and Services
P
P
Food Processing, Small Scale
P
Food Store
P
P
P
P
Health Care and Social Services
P
P
P
P
P
Higher Education Center
P
P
P
P
Home Occupation*
P
P
P
P
P
Hospital*
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2

Proposed Land Use Classification
PB
CC
LC
HC
PT
Industry, Craftsman
P
P
P
P
Industry, Light
P
P
Information Technology
P
P
P
P
P
Live-Work*
C2
P
P
P
P
Lodging Facility
P
P
P
P
Mortuary
P
P
Parking Facility
P
P
P
P
Pawn Shop
P
Personal Service
P
P
P
P
P
Professional Service
P
P
P
P
P
Planned Unit Development*
C3
C3
C3
Public Service Facility*
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
Public Service Facility, Limited
P
P
P
P
P
Public Service Use
P
P
P
P
P
Recreation Vehicle Park*
P
Religious Institution*
P
P
P
P
Residential Care Facility
P
P
P
P
P
Retail
P
P
P
P
School
P
P
P
P
Short Term Rental*
P
P
P
Fuel Station
P
P
P
Fuel Station, Super
C2
P
P
Starter Home Subdivision
P
P

Storage Facility, Indoor
P
P
P
P
Storage Facility, Outdoor
P
Storage Yard*
P
Transit Station
P
P
P
P
Vehicle Body Shop
P
Vehicle Repair and Service
P
P
P
Vehicle Sales, Rental and Service
P
P
Vehicle Washing Facility
C2
C2
P
(Ord. 3210, 8-23-18) (Ord. 3218, 9-13-18) (Ord. 3233, 12-20-18) (Ord 3277, 10-10-19)
(Ord. 3358, 12-10-20) (Ord. 3451, 3-31-22) (Ord. 3574, 6-13-24)

11-2-6: STANDARDS FOR ALLOWED LAND USES.
(A) Accessory Use, Fuel Station
(B) Accessory Use, Storage Yard
(C) Adult Business
(D) Agriculture
(E) Amusement Center, Indoor Shooting Range

(F) Amusement Center, Outdoor
(G) Animal Care Clinic
(H) Animal Care Facility
(I) Bed and Breakfast
(J) Cemetery
(K) Club, and Religious Institution
(L) Day Care, Center and Day Care, Group
(M) Drive-through Establishment
(N) Dwelling, Accessory Unit
(O) Dwelling, Multi-Unit
(P) Dwelling, Single Unit Attached
(Q) Hazards and Nuisances
(R) Home Occupations
(S) Hospital
(T) Live-Work
(U) Manufactured Home outside a Manufactured Home Community
(V) Mobile Home Park
(W) Planned Unit Development
(X) Public Service Facility
(Y) Recreation Vehicle Park
(Z) Salvage Yard & Recycling Centers
(AA) Short Term Rental
(BB) Starter Home Subdivisions
(CC) (BB) Storage Yards
(DD) (CC) Temporary Construction
(EE) (DD) Temporary Land Use
(P)
Dwelling, Single Unit Attached, and Multi-Unit Attached.

(1)
Every lot upon which an attached dwelling is located shall have frontage upon a
dedicated public street.
(2)
No attached dwelling shall be located above another dwelling unit, either in
whole or part.
(3)
Each attached dwelling shall have at least one (1) direct pedestrian access from
the interior of the dwelling to the exterior boundaries of the lot. No pedestrian access to
an attached dwelling unit
may be held in common with any other attached dwelling unit.
(4)
Except as noted below, an attached dwelling shall have no facilities or property
in common with
any other attached dwelling and all such dwelling units shall be structurally and
functionally
independent from another. All attached dwellings shall have separate electrical service,
water
service lines and sanitary sewer service lines from all other of such dwellings. Common
facilities
or property are allowed for the following:
(a)
Common party walls constructed in accordance with the International Building
Code.
(b)
Foundations supporting attached or party walls.
(c)
Flashing at the termination of the roof covering any attached walls.
(d)
Roofs.
(e)
Vehicular access to a dedicated street from off-street parking facilities or
garages.
(5)
Reserved.No building permit shall be issued for the construction of an attached
dwelling unless a common facilities agreement or party wall agreement for Declaration
of Condominium has been filed
with the Bonneville County Recorder’s Office for each such dwelling which shares
common
facilities with another unit. Such agreement shall include a legal description of the lots
sharing
common facilities and shall allocate responsibility between the owners of such lots the
use,
maintenance, and ownership of all common facilities.
(6)
All attached dwellings shall meet the dwelling unit separation requirements of the
officially
adopted and applicable building codes of Idaho Falls.
(7)
A lot upon which an attached dwelling is located need not comply with the zone’s
minimum area and width requirements, provided such lot complies with the zone’s
location of buildings.

(8)
The gross density of attached dwellings shall not exceed the density allowed in
the zone where
it is located. Public rights-of-way shall be excluded when calculating gross density.
(9)
An interior attached dwelling shall be allowed to increase the maximum lot
coverage by ten
percent (10%).

(BB) Starter Home Subdivisions
(1) Purpose. A residential subdivision that is designed to provide small lots and
compact home sizes.
(2) General Requirements
(a) Starter Home Subdivisions shall be a permitted use in all zones that
permit residential uses.
(b) Shall apply to parcel(s) that are four (4) acres or larger in all residential
zones planned as one development. If located in the following zones,
the minimum acreage can be reduced to 2 acres: R2, TN, R3, R3A,
RMH, LC or CC.
(c) Permitted uses shall be Dwelling, Single Unit Detached or Dwelling,
Single Unit Attached.
(i)
In the CC Zone, Dwelling, Single Unit Detached or Single
Unit Attached shall only be permitted in the Starter Home
Subdivision.
(ii)
In the RE and RP Zones, only Dwelling, Single Unit
Detached shall be permitted, per the underlying zone.
(d) Front setback shall be a minimum fifteen (15) feet, the rear setback a
minimum ten (10) feet and the side setback shall be a minimum five (5)
feet.
a. The rear yard setback may be reduced to three feet (3’) on lots
in any residential zone in which the rear yard is contiguous to a
public or private alley.
(e) Lot sizes shall be sized in order to accommodate the required
setbacks. If a corner lot, the lot will accommodate two (2) front
setbacks for each public right of way of fifteen (15) ft.
(f) Maximum lot coverage for Starter Home Subdivisions shall be eighty
(80) percent, which will only include those areas under roofs.
(g) Maximum density shall be 15 units per gross acre or the density of the
underlying zone if greater.
(h) Parking Requirements:

a. Parking shall be two parking spaces per lot, at the standard
parking stall size of ten (10) feet width by twenty (20) feet in
length. Parking may be tandem on an approved driveway that
leads to either a garage or a parking stall behind the front
setback
b. If a private alley is included on or adjacent to the lot, parking
may be reduced to one parking stall accessed from the private
alley.
(i) Accessory Structures on lots in Starter Home Subdivisions shall have
the following setbacks if the accessory structure wall height is less than
twelve (12) feet, it can have a fifteen (15) front setback and a zero (0)
rear and side setback. If the wall height is greater than twelve (12) feet,
it must follow the primary setbacks of Starter Home Subdivisions as
outlined in this code. An accessory structure contributes to the
maximum lot coverage.
(j) Height requirements shall be the height requirements per the
underlying zone.
(k) Approval Process. Starter Home Subdivisions will follow the platting
process as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.

11-7-1: DEFINITIONS.
Starter Home Subdivision: A residential subdivision that is designed for compact home
sizes on small lots that have frontage on a public street.
Dwelling Unit A single unit providing complete independent and self-contained living
facilities for one (1) or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
eating, cooking and sanitation, A structure(s) designed for or occupied exclusively by
one (1) “household,” for living or sleeping purposes and having one (1) kitchen or set of
cooking facilities or group residence in which eight (8) or fewer unrelated persons with
disabilities, elderly persons, or minors when in a facility licensed by the State of Idaho
and who are supervised at the group residence in connection with their disability or age
related infirmity under the following conditions: 1. Resident staff, if employed, need not
be related to each other or to any of the persons with disabilities, elderly persons, or
minors residing in the group residence 2. No more than two (2) of such staff shall reside
in the dwelling at any one time. The term dwelling does not include boarding /rooming
house, lodging, residential care facility or recreational vehicle.

Dwelling, Multi Unit Attached A structure containing more than two (2) dwelling units
attached by a

common wall or walls, where each dwelling unit is located on a separate lot and each
unit has open space on at least two (2) sides.

Dwelling, Single Unit Attached A structure containing dwelling units where each
dwelling is attached to another single-unit dwelling(s) by a firewall(s) that extends from
foundation to roof. A structure containing three (3) dwelling units attached by a common
wall or walls, where each dwelling unit is located on a separate lot.

Dwelling, Single Unit Detached: A structure consisting of only a single one (1)
dwelling unit separated from all other dwelling units by open space.

Dwelling, Two-Unit A structure consisting of two (2) dwelling units which may either be
attached side by side or one (1) above the other, where all such units are located on the
same property and not separated by a firewall and not capable of separate ownership.

Dwelling, Multi-Unit A structure(s), or portion thereof, that contains four (4) three (3) or
more dwelling units, where all such units are located on the same property.

Live-Work Unit A property designed for principal non-residential uses, allowed in the
zone where the use(s) is located, and where accessory residential dwelling uses are
permitted. The non-residential use(s) is for the use of the vocation of the resident of the
dwelling unit(s). The use of a site for commercial or small scale manufacturing activity
and dwelling unit(s) located within, near or contiguous to the working space.

Aa A WH

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixty-eighth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2026

IN THE SENATE
SENATE BILL NO. 1352, As Amended
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

AN ACT
RELATING TO HOUSING; AMENDING CHAPTER 65, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDI-
TION OF A NEW SECTION 67-6541, IDAHO CODE, TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS RE-
GARDING STARTER HOME SUBDIVISIONS AND TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION; PROVID-
ING SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

SECTION 1. That Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and des-
ignated as Section 67-6541, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

67-6541. STARTER HOME SUBDIVISIONS. (1) No city shall enact or enforce
any ordinance within its jurisdiction that bans starter home subdivisions
in any residential zoning area. "Starter home subdivision" means a resi-
dential subdivision on at least four (4) acres of land that is designed to
provide attainable homeownership opportunities with single-family detached
dwellings on smaller lots that are no greater than one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet per lot, have compact home sizes, and have efficient site
design that reduces development costs while maintaining compatibility with
surrounding neighborhoods.

(2) By February 1, 2027, by resolution or ordinance adopted, amended,
or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided
in section 67-6509, Idaho Code, each city governing board shall amend its
comprehensive plan and land use regulations to allow starter home subdivi-
sions in residential zoning districts, except for lands falling within an
area defined as a historic district in section 67-4607, Idaho Code, or des-
ignated as a historic property pursuant to section 67-4614, Idaho Code. For
starter home subdivisions, a city's comprehensive plan and land-use regula-
tions shall be amended to:

(a) Prohibit requiring minimum lot sizes exceeding one thousand five

hundred (1,500) square feet for lots located in starter home subdivi-

sions unless infrastructure limitations, lot configuration, or envi-
ronmental constraints make it unfeasible;

(ob) Prohibit requiring front or rear setbacks exceeding fifteen (15)

feet or side setbacks exceeding five (5) feet for a primary residential

structure ona lot, provided, however, that setbacks along the perime-
ter of a project may be required to match setbacks of abutting zoning
districts;

narrow lots;

(d) Prohibit requiring lot depths exceeding seventy (70) feet, unless

overall lot shape, topography, or environmental or infrastructure con-

straints require it; and

DAN AA AWD

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27
28
29
30

3
32
33

(e) Prohibit imposing permit fees, development impact fees, or util-
ity connection fees for starter home subdivisions exceeding those that
would be imposed on other single-family home subdivisions. A local
government may provide incentives to builders through fee reductions or
waivers for compliance with smaller lot and setback options.

(3) The provisions of this section shall not supersede state or local
laws that protect public health, safety, and welfare, including:

(a) Building codes, fire safety standards, and flood plain regula-

tions;

(ob) Laws regarding water, sewer, storm drainage, road access, roadway

classifications or conditions, infrastructure capacity constraints,

and utility services necessary to support the required density;

steep slopes, or critical habitat protections; and

(d) Laws and regulations regarding setback requirements for rights-of-

way and easements.

(4) The provisions of this section shall apply only to cities with a
population greater than ten thousand (10,000).

(5) Cities may condition or deny approval of a starter home subdivision
where the city determines that existing or planned infrastructure is inade-
quate to support the subdivision, to the same extent and under the same stan-
dards the city applies to other residential subdivisions.

(6) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city from enacting regula-
tions, standards, or conditions that are less restrictive than the require-
ments provided in this section.

SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this act are hereby declared
to be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason,
such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this act.

SECTION 3. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby
declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after
July 1, 2026.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Council President Jim Francis; Brian Cunningham, Assistant PW Director; Forrest Ihler,
Planning Commission Chair; Matthew Meehan, Planning Commission Vice-Chair; Heather McBride, Ammon Assistant
Planner; Heidi Boyle, Ammon Council Member; Barry Bame, Krossroads Engineering; Steve Heath, Mountain West
Engineering; Aaron O’Connor, RPI Construction; Jeremy Westwood, Alta Project Services; Neil Humphreys, Eagle Rock
Engineering
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilor Brandon Lee; Luke Bloxham, Bloxham Realty
ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Beutler, Assistant Planning Director; Wade Sanner, Planning Director; Caitlin Long, Planner;
Ann Peterson, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER: Beutler called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m.
STARTER HOME SUBDIVISON: Senate Bill No. 1352 – Starter Home Subdivision
Staff discussed the implementation of Senate Bill No. 1352, which is required to be implemented
by February 1, 2027. The bill defines a “starter home subdivision” as a residential subdivision on
at least four (4) acres of land designed to provide attainable homeownership opportunities
through single-family detached dwellings on smaller lots. Lots may be no greater than 1,500
square feet, with compact home sizes and efficient site design intended to reduce development
costs while maintaining compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. The provisions will apply
to all residential zoning districts throughout the City.
The statute establishes the following requirements for a starter home subdivision:

Minimum of four (4) acres of land.

Single-family detached dwellings.

Maximum lot size of 1,500 square feet.

Front and rear setbacks may not exceed 15 feet.

Side setbacks may not exceed 5 feet.

Lot widths may not exceed 30 feet.

Lot depths may not exceed 70 feet.
COMMITTEE DISCUSION:
The Committee discussed the proposed requirements for setbacks, public utility easements (PUEs), and
lot sizes for starter home subdivisions. It was clarified that no portion of a structure may be located
within a 15-foot easement. Questions were raised regarding whether eaves could encroach into the
easement and how the easement requirement would affect the practical front setback. Although the City
cannot require a minimum front setback greater than 15 feet, a structure must still remain outside of a
Community Development Services
City of Idaho Falls Starter
Home Subdivision
Committee Minutes
380 Constitution Way
Idaho Falls, ID
Thursday, August 27,
12:00
Annex Conference

PUE, which could result in an effective setback of 16 feet or more depending on the location of the
easement.
The Committee also discussed the apparent contradiction in the state statute regarding lot sizes. One
section states that lots may be “no greater than 1,500 square feet,” while another provision indicates
that cities cannot require minimum lot sizes exceeding 1,500 square feet. It was noted that the State
has been asked to provide an interpretation, and the language may allow lots as small as 1,500 square
feet rather than establishing 1,500 square feet as an absolute maximum. Several members expressed
concern that, without a maximum lot size, the purpose of the starter home subdivision provisions could
be undermined. For example, allowing substantially larger lots, such as 3,000 or 4,000 square feet,
could make the development comparable to standard zoning rather than achieving the intended goal of
smaller, more attainable lots. The Committee generally agreed that if maximum lot sizes are
established, they should be carefully considered and potentially set at a larger threshold to provide
flexibility.
It was also noted that, with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance potentially being removed,
these provisions may be used in various ways to provide flexibility similar to what was previously
available through the PUD process. The Committee discussed the importance of maintaining flexibility
within the proposed starter home subdivision standards. City staff may be asked to remove the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) provisions from the code; however, this does not necessarily mean the PUD
process will be permanently eliminated. Additional public hearings and discussion will be required, and
the final decision may result in a revised or replacement process. It was explained that the intent of
revising the PUD process is to address concerns regarding inconsistent application, which has created
challenges for developers, City Council, and the community. The goal is to improve and clarify the
process rather than eliminate development flexibility altogether.
The Committee also discussed whether perimeter buffering, or additional setbacks should be required
where starter homes are adjacent to existing residential development. Staff noted that the city does not
typically require buffers between detached single-unit residential uses, regardless of lot size or
residential zoning district. Buffering between residential uses has primarily been required through the
PUD process. Because starter homes would consist of detached single-unit structures and would be
permitted within existing residential zones, staff indicated that additional buffering may not be
necessary when the development is adjacent to similar residential uses. It was clarified that starter
homes could be developed adjacent to, or within, an R1 zone, provided all applicable development
standards are met. The proposed use would not create a separate zoning district but would instead be
a permitted use within the City's residential use tables.
The Committee expressed concern about eliminating the PUD process before a replacement process is
established. They emphasized the importance of ensuring developers are not left without a mechanism
for flexible development while the City develops new regulations.
The proposed state requirements do not specifically address density or lot coverage, meaning those
and other applicable development regulations would still need to be considered as part of the
development process. Additional development standards that could create challenges for starter home
subdivisions are parking requirements. Current City standards generally require two parking spaces per
dwelling unit. Tandem parking is not permitted, on-street parking does not count toward the required

parking spaces for residential uses, and parking within the front setback is only permitted in an
approved driveway leading to a parking space. It was also clarified that a garage may count as a
parking space; however, a garage space and a parking space directly behind it cannot both be counted
toward the parking requirement. Participants identified parking as a significant issue for smaller lots.
Some suggested that tandem parking, particularly a garage with a vehicle parked in the driveway
behind it, should be allowed for this type of development. It was noted that tandem parking is common
in some existing neighborhoods and has previously been allowed through certain PUD approvals
without significant issues. Staff explained that many of the development standards being discussed,
including certain street, utility, power, and public works requirements, fall outside the direct authority of
Planning and Zoning. Changes to those standards would require coordination with other City
departments. However, the zoning standards under the authority of Community Development Services,
including density, lot coverage, and certain parking requirements, could be evaluated and amended.
The Committee emphasized that simply adopting the minimum state requirements without addressing
other local development standards could make starter home subdivisions impractical. For example,
retaining a density limit of six units per acre in an R1 zone could prevent the efficient development of
1,500-square-foot lots. Similarly, existing lot coverage requirements could significantly limit the size of a
structure on a small lot. The purpose of the working group is to identify these barriers and determine
what adjustments may be necessary to create a development option that is both compliant with state
law and practically achievable.
Staff asked whether they had previously developed lots of a similar size and whether there is market
demand for this type of housing. Developers indicated that some of the smallest lots they had developed
were approximately 3,000 to 6,500 square feet, including smaller twin home and “skinny” home
products. Participants generally agreed that developing detached homes on lots between approximately
3,000 and 4,000 square feet would make it difficult to accommodate a garage while also meeting
applicable setback and parking requirements.
One developer noted that approximately 5,000 square feet was the smallest lot size they had found
practical for a particular housing product due to side setback requirements. Another participant identified
lot coverage requirements as one of the largest barriers in developing smaller lots.
The Committee also discussed whether a detached single-family home without a garage would be
marketable in Idaho Falls. Some participants expressed concern that buyers may expect a garage,
particularly for a single-family detached home. Others noted that marketability could depend heavily on
the price point, and a smaller two-bedroom, two-bath home without a garage could appeal to buyers if
offered at an affordable price.
Participants questioned the rationale for prohibiting tandem parking and discussed whether vehicles
parked in a driveway behind a garage should count toward the required parking spaces. Staff explained
that the current restrictions were developed in response to concerns and complaints regarding vehicles
parked improperly, double parking, parking in front of neighboring properties, and vehicles blocking
sidewalks due to short driveways. It was noted, however, that tandem parking has been permitted in
some PUD developments and has not appeared to create significant problems. Several participants
supported reconsidering the prohibition for starter home developments, particularly because providing
two separate non-tandem parking spaces on a very small lot may be impractical. Small-lot

developments in Texas, including homes as small as approximately 300 to 600 square feet on lots of
approximately 1,300 square feet were reviewed. In those examples, parking was accommodated within
the front setback area. Staff noted that allowing this approach locally could create additional
challenges, as a deeper setback may be necessary to ensure parked vehicles do not block the
sidewalk.
Rear-loaded housing with private alleys was discussed as another potential solution for parking and
access. Participants noted that this approach could provide space for parking while allowing the front of
the homes to maintain a more attractive residential appearance. However, rear-loaded development
would require both a public street and an alley, potentially reducing the number of units that could be
developed and increasing infrastructure requirements. It was noted that alleys can also provide an
additional location for utilities, including power, water, secondary irrigation, and stormwater
infrastructure. This can be an advantage where limited space is available within the public street right-
of-way. A width of approximately 26 feet may be required where the alley is needed for fire access;
however, the fire code may allow a narrower, approximately 20-foot alley where emergency response
access is not necessary because adequate access is provided from the public street. Participants
noted that similar parking and access challenges have been encountered in other local developments,
including River Hollow, and suggested that those experiences may provide useful examples as the city
evaluates standards for starter home subdivisions. Participants discussed alley design requirements,
including the need for a hard-surfaced alley and adequate drainage. Because starter home
developments would not be developed through the PUD process, private streets would not be an
option. Any development would need to be designed around public street standards. Where a property
abuts an alley, the applicable setback may be reduced to three feet, providing additional flexibility for
building placement. One suggestion was to establish a maximum lot size and require an alley for lots
below a certain size. Staff noted that state law may limit the City's ability to require alleys specifically for
starter home developments if the City does not impose similar requirements on other residential
development. However, due to the challenges associated with accommodating utilities, parking,
driveways, and access on smaller lots, the group recognized that smaller lot development may naturally
lend itself to a rear-loaded product.
The Committee discussed removing or modifying the prohibition against parking within the front
setback. Allowing parking in the front setback could make it possible to accommodate a one-car
garage with an additional vehicle parked in the driveway or provide additional guest parking. Staff
noted that reducing the required number of parking spaces from two spaces per unit to one may be
easier to justify in a rear-loaded development without front curb cuts. In that configuration, more
uninterrupted curb space could be available for on-street parking, potentially providing an additional
parking option for residents and guests. This could create a reasonable connection between reduced
on-site parking requirements and available on-street parking. Conversely, front-loaded development
with numerous curb cuts would reduce the amount of available on-street parking. Participants
acknowledged that City Council may be less willing to reduce the parking requirement from two
spaces to one without a clear alternative for resident and guest parking. It was also noted that only
one parking space per unit is currently required in the CC zone. The Committee discussed how the
characteristics of the CC zone, including the presence of streets and alleys, may provide an example
of how reduced parking requirements can function where on-street parking and rear access are
available.

The Committee then reviewed potential development scenarios using example properties to
better understand how the proposed standards could work in practice. The first example
involved a four-acre property with approximately 225 feet of frontage on Holmes Avenue, an
arterial roadway. Because the property fronts an arterial, access would be limited, and only one
access point would be available unless additional access could be obtained. Developments
exceeding 30 units would generally require a second access point. Participants discussed
several potential options, including extending a road north to connect with adjacent properties,
extending south to connect with another roadway, or constructing a bridge. However, each
option presented significant challenges involving surrounding property ownership, street length
limitations, cost, and development feasibility. A cul-de-sac street would also be limited in length
and could require additional infrastructure. The group generally concluded that the site would be
difficult to develop for this type of starter home product and may not be a practical example. It
was noted that a PUD could provide flexibility for narrower roads and alternative layouts;
however, even with that flexibility, the site's arterial access limitations would remain. Participants
indicated that the site would likely be more difficult to develop as a small-lot single-family
subdivision.
A second example consisting of approximately 13 acres with access from Eliza Joy and Alley Rose,
both public streets was reviewed. Eliza Joy currently has a 50-foot right-of-way, with the expectation
that an additional 10 feet of right-of-way would eventually be dedicated to accommodate sidewalk
improvements. Alley Rose was identified as a full public street. Because the property has access to two
surrounding public streets, the group discussed whether direct access to individual homes should be
limited along certain street frontages. A loop road or other internal circulation system would likely be
necessary to provide appropriate access. Participants considered the dimensions of the site and the
feasibility of fitting multiple public streets and rows of small lots within the available depth. Based on
preliminary calculations, constructing two internal roads could significantly reduce available lot depth. If
the remaining property depth were divided among multiple rows of lots, individual lot depths could be
less than 100 feet, potentially resulting in lots approximately 75 feet deep. They noted that 75-foot-deep
lots could be difficult to develop when accounting for 15-foot front and rear setbacks. At the same time,
providing only one internal road could result in excessively deep lots. It was recognized that the
additional depth could potentially accommodate a rear alley, allowing for more efficient lot layouts and
rear-loaded access. Several potential configurations were discussed, including layouts with three or
four rows of lots, frontage along an existing public street, and internal roads or alleys. Some
configurations would require a combination of front-loaded and rear-loaded homes.
Existing driveway and curb-cut standards and their impact on small-lot development was reviewed.
While local roads such as Eliza Joy do not have the same driveway spacing requirements as arterial
roads, other standards still apply. These include limitations on the portion of a lot frontage that may be
occupied by driveways, minimum spacing between driveway curb cuts, and required separation
between curb cuts and property lines. It was concluded that these requirements would make direct
driveway access from a public street extremely difficult on lots as small as 1,500 square feet and
challenging even on lots of approximately 3,000 square feet. As lot sizes decrease, rear access or
alternative parking arrangements may become increasingly necessary. The Committee agreed that
parking requirements remain an important issue for further discussion. Allowing a one-car garage and
an additional tandem space in the driveway was identified as one potential option that could provide
greater flexibility. Participants also discussed potential layouts using a combination of public streets and

alleys to accommodate multiple rows of smaller lots while maintaining reasonable lot depths and
access.
The Committee continued discussing potential site layouts involving public streets and rear alleys. One
possible configuration included a public road with alternating lots and alleys; however, participants
noted that constructing both a public road and an alley would substantially increase infrastructure costs.
It was estimated that the additional road improvements could add approximately $6,000 to $8,000 per
unit. Several participants emphasized that infrastructure costs must be carefully considered if the goal
is to create truly affordable starter homes. Concerns were raised that requiring alleys could increase
development costs and ultimately affect home prices. Alternatives discussed included narrower public
rights-of-way, allowing on-street parking, or permitting private streets. It was suggested that reducing
the width of a public right-of-way could make small-lot development more feasible. A narrower street
without on-street parking, combined with rear alley access, could potentially provide a more affordable
development option. However, staff noted that the City has previously discussed a 50-foot private road
standard and encountered difficulty obtaining support for that approach. The Committee also discussed
whether starter home subdivisions could be allowed to use private streets. It was noted that Idaho Falls
currently requires lots to have frontage on a public street, although the state statute itself does not
specifically require public street frontage. Private roads account for much of the flexibility historically
provided through the PUD process and suggested that eliminating the PUD process without
considering an alternative for private streets could limit development options.
Discussed was whether private roads would result in lower housing prices. One participant noted that,
while private roads may reduce construction costs, those savings may not always translate directly
into a lower sales price on a per-square-foot basis. Others emphasized that infrastructure savings
become increasingly important when attempting to develop homes at lower price points. While the
difference between public and private infrastructure may have less impact on homes selling in the
mid-$300,000 range, every additional cost becomes more significant when the goal is to develop
homes priced below $300,000. One participant provided an example of townhomes selling for
approximately $285,000 that were made possible, in part, through the use of private roads. Private
infrastructure may result in ongoing homeowners association fees. An example HOA fee of
approximately $60 per month was discussed, and participants agreed that recurring HOA costs must
be considered when evaluating overall housing affordability.
The Committee discussed an appropriate density range for starter home subdivisions, with
preliminary consideration given to approximately 12 to 15 units per acre. Participants agreed,
however, that increasing the allowable density alone would not solve the development
challenges created by existing parking requirements. Under current standards, the two-parking-
space-per-unit requirement could significantly limit the number of units that could be developed,
regardless of the density allowed. Participants discussed whether parking requirements could be
reduced or made more flexible, including a potential requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit or a
parking standard based on the number of bedrooms. It was noted that current standards allow
reduced parking requirements for certain one-bedroom residential units. It was questioned
whether a bedroom-based parking requirement would be practical for detached starter homes,
expressing concern that developers could respond by designing rooms as offices or other
spaces that could later function as bedrooms. There were also concerns that this approach
could encourage efforts to work around the intent of the code.

Participants discussed whether there is sufficient demand for one-bedroom detached homes. They
acknowledged that one-bedroom homes do exist and can be affordable, often selling in the high-
$100,000 to low-$200,000 range. However, the market was generally described as limited. Some
participants suggested that many buyers interested in a smaller one-bedroom home may instead
choose to rent an apartment with additional amenities. Others noted that there are still individuals who
specifically prefer owning a small, detached home rather than renting, including single-person
households and older buyers. Overall, the group characterized the demand for one-bedroom detached
homes as a niche market. Participants generally agreed that a minimum of two bedrooms would likely
appeal to a much broader segment of potential buyers. It was also noted that smaller homes without
garages could potentially provide an affordable ownership option, similar to older post-World War II
neighborhoods that contain modest homes with relatively simple and efficient floor plans.
The group discussed whether a starter home subdivision could include a mix of one-, two-, and three-
bedroom homes and varying lot sizes. From a planning perspective, a mix of housing products, price
points, and unit types was viewed favorably because it could create a more diverse neighborhood.
Developers noted, however, that mixed housing products can create challenges in subdivision design
and construction. Many developments are built around a consistent housing product because
standardized lot layouts, road configurations, and construction methods are more efficient. Introducing
multiple housing types can result in additional design complexity and unused space. One participant
noted that some developments have successfully incorporated several different building types.
However, smaller two-bedroom units in one example development struggled in the market. As a result,
the developer indicated a preference for avoiding one-bedroom units because of the perceived market
risk. It was noted that an earlier phase of the development included a diverse mix of housing products,
while a subsequent phase was designed with a more uniform product based on market experience.
The Committee discussed the flexibility needed to make starter home subdivisions financially feasible
while still producing homes that meet market demand. One participant noted that a 5,000-square-foot lot
can accommodate a three-bedroom, two-bath, approximately 1,500-square-foot home with a two-car
garage and described that lot size as an ideal product for the current market. Based on current
development costs, participants estimated that reducing lot costs could potentially make it possible to
offer a similar home for less than $300,000. Participants generally identified the $300,000 to $315,000
range as an important affordability threshold for many first-time homebuyers. Smaller lots and yards
were viewed as acceptable tradeoffs for buyers seeking a single-family home at a lower price point.
The Committee continued to identify parking as one of the primary barriers to smaller lot development.
Several participants strongly supported allowing tandem parking and parking within the front setback as
alternatives to constructing rear alleys, which can add significant infrastructure costs. One proposed
approach would retain the requirement for two parking spaces per unit but provide greater flexibility in
how those spaces are accommodated. For example, a one-car garage with a parking space in the
driveway could satisfy the two-space requirement. Participants emphasized that changing the
configuration of required parking may be more practical than reducing the overall number of required
spaces. The group also discussed the City's limitation on the percentage of lot frontage that may be
used for driveways. Increasing the allowable driveway width from 50 percent to two-thirds of the lot
frontage was identified as another potential option. However, concerns were raised regarding snow
storage and removal, particularly where large portions of a small lot are paved. The discussion
considered how tandem parking and smaller lot widths could allow development on lots as small as

approximately 2,000 square feet. Participants also discussed expanding the proposed standards to
allow attached housing or allowing housing types otherwise permitted in the underlying zoning district.
It was noted that the state requirements are intended to facilitate detached housing but may allow local
governments to adopt less restrictive standards. Allowing attached housing could provide additional
flexibility, improve the ability to meet parking and setback requirements, and potentially reduce
construction costs. Participants discussed examples of shared driveways where a narrower driveway
entrance widens behind the homes to provide access to garages and additional parking. This approach
could reduce the amount of pavement and curb cuts along the street while still accommodating
necessary parking. The group also noted that similar development patterns exist in older parts of Idaho
Falls, including small original lots, shared driveways, and narrower streets. These existing
neighborhoods were identified as examples demonstrating that smaller-lot development is not entirely
new to the community.
An existing subdivision outside the City was discussed as an example of smaller single-family lots and
homes. The development includes lots generally ranging from approximately 6,000 to 6,500 square feet
and demonstrates the potential market demand for smaller single-family homes. One developer
explained that they had adapted the design and features of a townhome product into a detached
single-family home with a target sales price of approximately $350,000. The product had performed
well, and the developer indicated that they would consider developing a similar product within Idaho
Falls if local development standards allowed it. Participants noted that existing zoning, lot coverage,
and land costs can make similar development difficult within the City. The group discussed lot coverage
as another significant barrier to starter home development. Current lot coverage requirements vary
among residential zones, with some zones allowing substantially greater coverage than others. A
preliminary recommendation for starter home subdivisions was to allow up to 80 percent lot coverage,
which participants believed could provide the flexibility needed to accommodate smaller lots and
practical housing designs.
Questions were also raised regarding the type of housing most appropriate for the starter home
concept. Participants discussed single-story, slab-on-grade homes, two-story homes, and homes with
basements. While smaller one-level homes may appeal to some older buyers, others noted that multi-
story homes can make more efficient use of a small lot. Market experience was discussed regarding
smaller two-bedroom and one-bedroom homes. Participants indicated that one-bedroom homes serve
a limited market and may be more difficult to sell, while two- and three-bedroom homes generally have
broader appeal.
The group clarified the distinction between attached garages and attached dwelling units. Participants
noted that attaching a garage to a home is generally more cost-effective than constructing a detached
garage because a detached garage requires separate foundations, exterior walls, utility connections,
and additional construction.
Several participants identified two potential changes that could substantially improve the feasibility of
starter home development: allowing tandem parking and allowing attached housing. These changes
could provide greater flexibility in site design, reduce infrastructure and construction costs, and make
smaller lots more practical. Concerns were also expressed about allowing larger attached housing
types, such as fourplexes or sixplexes, under the starter home provisions. Some participants wanted to
maintain the intent of creating a neighborhood character similar to traditional single-family development

and avoid using the standards solely as a mechanism for increasing density. As a potential
compromise, the group discussed allowing attached housing but limiting it to twin homes or duplexes.
This approach could provide some of the cost and land-use efficiencies of attached development while
maintaining a lower-density residential appearance. The group noted that the overall intent of the state
legislation appears to be reducing housing costs. Participants generally agreed that achieving lower
price points may require flexibility beyond detached homes on extremely small lots. While an 800-
square-foot or smaller detached home may be possible, there was concern that this type of product
may have limited demand in the local market. Participants indicated that attached housing with features
such as two-car garages and three bedrooms may better meet current buyer demand while still
providing a more attainable price point. They considered whether an approximately 800-square-foot,
two-bedroom, single-level home with a one-car garage and driveway could be a viable detached
product. Some expressed concern about the marketability and financial risk of offering a one-car
garage product, while others believed a smaller, more affordable home could appeal to certain buyers.
A significant portion of the discussion focused on whether allowing attached housing would provide the
flexibility necessary to make the new regulations successful. Some participants believed that attached
units could help address lot size, parking, setbacks, and construction costs. Others expressed concern
that, if attached housing were broadly allowed, developers might primarily use the new provisions for
attached products rather than the detached single-family homes they believed were the intent of the
state legislation. It was clarified that one potential approach would be to allow attached housing only
where it is already permitted in the underlying zoning district. This could help avoid creating isolated
areas of attached housing while providing additional flexibility in appropriate residential zones.
Participants also discussed limiting attached housing to twin homes or duplexes as a possible
compromise.
Participants discussed changing housing preferences and the challenges of providing attainable
homeownership opportunities. Some noted that many buyers, particularly younger first-time
homebuyers, are already purchasing townhomes and attached housing because these products provide
one of the more accessible paths into homeownership. Others emphasized that Idaho Falls residents
have traditionally preferred detached homes and that some buyers, particularly those looking to
downsize, may be reluctant to share a wall with a neighboring unit. However, participants generally
agreed that housing preferences and market conditions may continue to change and that long-range
planning should consider future housing needs.
The group also discussed broader factors affecting housing affordability, including interest rates, limited
housing inventory, and the difficulty many residents face in purchasing homes. Participants noted that
housing affordability is influenced by numerous factors and expressed concern that changes to only a
few development standards may not, by themselves, substantially improve affordability.
Participants again expressed strong concern about removing the PUD process before a replacement
process or alternative development standards are in place. Several participants stated that PUDs
currently provide important flexibility for attached housing, private roads, infill development, mixed
housing types, and other development configurations that may not be possible under standard zoning.
Developers noted that townhomes continue to sell and provide an important housing option,
particularly for first-time homebuyers. Some participants believed that eliminating the PUD process
without another mechanism for flexible development could significantly reduce the availability of
attached and other attainable housing products. It was suggested that the PUD process should be

reformed rather than eliminated outright. A Council representative clarified that no immediate action
was being taken to eliminate the PUD process. Rather, the anticipated action would direct staff to
begin evaluating and revising the regulations. The stated goal was to develop clearer standards that
better reflect Council expectations and provide a more predictable process for both developers and the
City. Participants discussed whether clearer, objective standards could reduce the need for a
discretionary hearing process. One suggestion was to establish specific development standards that
developers could meet by right, allowing projects that comply with those standards to move forward
without uncertainty over discretionary requirements.
The Committee discussed the requirement that sellable lots have frontage on a public street.
Participants noted that this requirement is one of the primary reasons many developments currently
use the PUD process, particularly where private roads are proposed. It was suggested that removing
or revising the public street frontage requirement could significantly reduce the number of
developments needing a PUD. Private roads can allow more efficient site layouts by reducing the
amount of land dedicated to public rights-of-way and providing flexibility for townhomes, twin homes,
single-family homes, and mixed housing developments. It was noted that developers are interested in
providing a mix of housing products when regulations allow practical and financially feasible site
designs. The group discussed the possibility that greater flexibility in standard zoning regulations could
reduce reliance on the PUD process while still allowing diverse housing types and development
patterns.
Next Steps
With limited time remaining, the group discussed next steps. Staff indicated that they would begin
drafting possible code language based on the discussion and would circulate the draft to participants
for review. Participants were asked whether feedback could be provided by email or whether another
meeting would be more beneficial after everyone had an opportunity to review the proposed language,
evaluate potential site layouts, and test the standards against actual housing products and floor plans.
Staff indicated that one or possibly two additional meetings may be scheduled. Staff also noted that
they are reviewing how other Idaho communities are implementing similar starter home provisions. At
the time of the discussion, Pocatello was identified as one of the few communities actively developing
regulations for this type of housing. Pocatello was also considering additional options, including cottage
court development, where smaller homes would be arranged around a shared central courtyard.
The group discussed whether allowing smaller starter home developments on sites of less than four
acres could be beneficial, particularly for infill properties. Participants generally supported exploring this
option, noting that many smaller infill sites could benefit from additional flexibility. Cottage court
development was also viewed as a potentially attractive option because it could provide shared, usable
outdoor space and create a stronger neighborhood feel.
Staff anticipated preparing a draft of the proposed regulations within the next several weeks and
distributing it to the group for review. Participants would be encouraged to evaluate the draft, sketch
potential site layouts, and test the proposed standards against actual housing products and floor plans
before the group reconvenes for further discussion.

Adjourned at 1:57 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Ann Peterson, Recorder

COMMITTEE DISCUSION:
Staff stated that, in preparation for the meeting, feedback from the previous meeting had been reviewed,
along with recent legal opinions, including an opinion issued by the State. Based on that information, staff
drafted proposed code language for Starter Home Subdivisions and provided the draft to the Board in
advance. Staff explained that the presentation would follow the proposed code point-by-point, providing
background on the proposed provisions and seeking feedback from the Board. Staff explained that a
Starter Home Subdivision would be established as a separate permitted use in zones that allow residential
uses. The proposed code includes additional standards and requirements specific to Starter Home
Subdivisions. Staff reviewed the proposed general requirements, noting that a Starter Home Subdivision
would be an allowed use in all residential zones, consistent with state requirements. The proposed code
would apply to parcels of four acres or larger. Staff explained that multiple parcels could potentially be
combined and replatted as one development, with the four-acre minimum applying to the overall
development. Staff also proposed reducing the minimum acreage requirement to two acres in certain
zones, including TN, R3, R3H, RNH, LC, and CC.
Discussion followed regarding the terminology "residential zones." A concern was raised that LC, Limited
Commercial and CC, Central Commercial are not technically classified as residential zones, although
residential uses are permitted in those zones. Members discussed whether the language should instead
refer to zones that allow residential uses to avoid ambiguity or potential legal challenges. The Committee
discussed whether allowing Starter Home Subdivisions in commercial zones such as LC and CC could
result in increased residential development or greater concern from neighboring residents. Staff noted that
residential uses, including higher-density development, are already permitted in certain commercial zones.
It was also noted that the proposed Starter Home Subdivision standards would provide an additional
development option and could result in less density than what is currently permitted in some of those
Community Development Services
City of Idaho Falls Starter
Home Subdivision
Committee Minutes
380 Constitution Way
Idaho Falls, ID
Tuesday, September 22,
9:00 AM
Annex Conference

zones. The Committee discussed whether reducing the acreage requirement in these zones was
appropriate. It was expressed that a two-acre Starter Home Subdivision could provide a reasonable option
for smaller-scale development and may be preferable to developing larger parcels with more intensive
housing. Concern was expressed primarily about the potential for very large developments consisting
entirely of Starter Home Subdivisions rather than smaller-scale developments.
The Committee discussed how the proposed Starter Home Subdivision standards would differ from the
existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, particularly for developments between two and four
acres. Staff explained that the primary differences are that a PUD may include private streets and requires
common open space, while a Starter Home Subdivision would require public streets and would not have
the same common-space requirement. Staff noted that smaller lots can already be achieved through the
PUD process, but the proposed Starter Home Subdivision would provide a different development option
with additional flexibility.
Staff reviewed the proposed permitted uses and noted that both detached and attached dwellings would be
allowed in a Starter Home Subdivision, subject to the applicable standards. Staff explained that single unit
detached dwellings are currently not permitted in the CC zone, although other residential uses are
permitted. The proposed code would allow single unit detached dwellings within a Starter Home
Subdivision in the CC zone. Staff also proposed limiting Starter Home Subdivisions in the RE, Residential
Estate and RP, Residential Park zones to detached dwellings only. This would maintain consistency with
the underlying zoning districts while still allowing Starter Hom Subdivisions. Staff explained that this
could provide some limitation on the type of development that could occur when property is annexed and
developed under those zoning designations.
The group discussed the potential number of attached dwelling units that could be included in a
development. Staff explained that the proposed code does not establish a specific limit on the number of
attached units. The number of units would primarily be determined by applicable fire access requirements
and the configuration of the development. Depending on the layout, fire access, alleys, and streets, a
development could accommodate approximately four to six units in some configurations, while other
configurations could accommodate larger numbers.
Staff reviewed the proposed setback requirements. The proposed front setback is a minimum of 15 feet,
consistent with the state requirements and considerations related to utility and fire access. The proposed
rear setback is 10 feet rather than the 15 feet provided in the state code. Staff explained that the 10-foot
setback was intended to provide consistency with existing development standards and provide additional
flexibility for Starter Home Subdivisions. A provision was also discussed that would allow the rear-yard
setback to be reduced to three feet when the rear yard abuts a public or private alley, consistent with a
provision previously adopted in the City's code.
Staff discussed the uncertainty surrounding the state requirements for lot sizes. Two legal opinions have
addressed whether the 1,500-square-foot standard should be interpreted as a minimum, maximum, or as
allowing flexibility above and below 1,500 square feet. Because of the differing interpretations and the
possibility that the Legislature may further clarify the definition, staff proposed not establishing a specific
minimum or maximum lot size in the City's code. Instead, lots would be required to accommodate all
applicable setbacks. Staff explained that this approach would also address the City's existing requirement
for corner lots to be larger, since corner lots must accommodate two front setbacks. The proposed

approach would provide flexibility for developers to create varying lot sizes and housing products while
still ensuring that the required setbacks can be met. The group discussed whether eliminating a specific
lot-size requirement could create issues for future homeowners whose homes may not fit appropriately on
an unusually shaped or small lot. Staff indicated that development would generally be planned as a
comprehensive project and that the subdivision and building review processes would provide
opportunities to identify those issues before construction.
Staff reviewed the proposed maximum lot coverage of 80 percent. It was clarified that, under the City's
definition, lot coverage generally refers to roofed structures rather than paved areas such as driveways.
The Committee discussed whether the definition of lot coverage applicable to residential zones also
applies to the proposed Starter Home Subdivision and whether the standard should instead be specifically
addressed within the Starter Home Subdivision provisions. The group discussed whether an 80-percent
maximum lot coverage could provide sufficient flexibility for attached housing, particularly where an
alley is located at the rear of the property and rear-yard setbacks can be reduced. Examples of attached
housing with garages or carports at the rear were discussed. Staff noted that the TN, Traditional
neighborhood zoning district has different lot-coverage provisions and that the proposed Starter Home
Subdivision standard could result in substantially greater coverage. Questions were raised regarding
stormwater management and the amount of impervious or developed area that could result from the
proposed standards. Staff agreed to review the applicable lot-coverage provisions and determine whether
the 80-percent standard should apply specifically to Starter Home Subdivisions or be revised to ensure
consistency with the City's existing zoning provisions.
Staff proposed a maximum density of 15 units per gross acre. Staff explained that the proposed density
was based on the density allowed in the TN zone and had been increased from an initial proposal of 13
units per acre. The group discussed how the proposed 15-unit-per-acre standard would interact with the
density allowances of the underlying zoning district. Staff clarified that the Starter Home Subdivision
standard would establish a 15-unit-per-acre maximum where applicable, even if the underlying zoning
district could otherwise allow greater density. For example, R3 and R3A may allow greater density, but a
Starter Home Subdivision would remain subject to the proposed standard. The group noted similarities
between the proposed Starter Home Subdivision standards and the TN zone, particularly the emphasis on
smaller lots, while recognizing that the proposed Starter Home Subdivision would allow greater lot
coverage.
Staff reviewed the proposed parking requirements, which would require two parking spaces per lot. A
standard parking space would be 10 feet wide by 20 feet long. Parking could be provided in tandem on an
approved driveway leading to a garage or parking area located behind the required front setback. Staff
clarified that parking would not generally be permitted within the front setback except where allowed as
part of an approved driveway. If a private alley is included on or adjacent to the lot, the parking
requirement could be reduced to one parking stall with access from the private alley. Staff explained that
this would allow, for example, a one-car garage or parking stall accessed from the alley, with additional
parking potentially occurring on the street. The Committee discussed whether the proposed standards
could inadvertently allow excessive parking within front yards. Staff explained that the intent was to allow
some flexibility for tandem parking while preventing front yards from becoming predominantly parking
areas. Public Works requirements regarding driveway spacing would also continue to apply. Shared or
combined driveways between adjacent lots were discussed. It was noted that shared driveways could

provide benefits for snow removal, utility placement, and construction costs. Staff indicated that the
existing requirements would generally encourage shared driveways without necessarily requiring them.
Staff reviewed proposed standards for accessory structures. The provisions would be similar to existing
accessory-structure setback requirements in the City's code. For accessory structures with a wall height of
less than 12 feet, the applicable primary setbacks would apply, including the required front setback and
applicable rear and side setbacks. Height requirements would continue to be governed by the underlying
zoning district. The group discussed whether accessory structures should be specifically addressed in the
Starter Home Subdivision standards or incorporated into the City's existing accessory-structure table. Staff
confirmed that accessory structures would count toward the maximum lot coverage. The treatment of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and their relationship to lot coverage and density was also discussed.
Staff noted that Starter Home Subdivisions would remain subject to the City's applicable planning and
subdivision review processes and the subdivision ordinance. The proposed definition was discussed as
describing a residential subdivision designed for compact homes, smaller lots, and frontage on a public
street. Staff emphasized that the proposed code is new and is intended to determine whether the
development standards are practical and buildable. Staff explained that the proposal is intended to provide
flexibility for developers to work around public works requirements, easements, access, and other site
constraints. Staff also acknowledged that adjustments to the code may be necessary after actual
developments are constructed and reviewed.
The Committee asked how a Starter Home Subdivision would be identified during the subdivision and
platting process and how the City would ensure that the reduced setbacks and other standards were not
used on developments that did not qualify. Staff explained that the development would be reviewed
through the preliminary plat process and that the plat would likely identify the development as a Starter
Home Subdivision so the applicable standards could be applied. The Committee talked about whether a
developer could use the Starter Home Subdivision designation on a larger lot simply to obtain the reduced
setbacks. Staff noted that the development would have to meet the applicable acreage and subdivision
requirements and would need to be established as a Starter Home Subdivision through the preliminary plat
process. Discussion also addressed whether a developer could use the designation for a larger-lot
development while still taking advantage of the reduced setbacks. Staff acknowledged that the proposed
standards could allow larger lots within a Starter Home Subdivision because the current proposal does not
establish a maximum lot size. The group discussed whether a maximum lot size should be considered to
ensure that the reduced setbacks remain associated with the intended compact housing concept. Staff
noted that the absence of a maximum lot size could provide flexibility for different housing products and
could potentially accommodate residents who prefer a smaller yard while maintaining a larger home.
The Committee revisited the proposed reduction of the minimum acreage from four acres to two acres in
certain higher-density or mixed-use zones. Staff explained that the rationale for the two-acre allowance
was to encourage this type of development in areas where greater density is already contemplated,
particularly within the City, rather than encouraging similar development on larger parcels at the City's
edges. Staff stated that a two-acre development could provide a smaller infill opportunity and may be
preferable to a four-acre development in areas without convenient access to goods and services. It was
discussed whether reducing the minimum acreage would actually make development easier, particularly
given the challenges associated with providing public streets and required access. Staff explained that the

feasibility would depend heavily on the characteristics of the individual parcel and that the two-acre
provision was intended primarily to provide additional flexibility.
The group reviewed examples of undeveloped and partially developed property in the CC zone to consider
how a two-acre Starter Home Subdivision might function in practice. Discussion focused on access, lot
configuration, frontage, and the potential number of units that could reasonably be developed on smaller
CC-zoned parcels. Staff noted that direct access to certain major roadways would not be permitted, which
could require rear-loaded development, shared access, or an alley. The group discussed whether a two-
acre Starter Homestead Division in a CC zone would be financially competitive with other development
options. It was noted that developers may instead choose townhomes, multifamily housing, or other
higher-density development where those options produce a greater number of units on the same land. It
was noted that the proposed standards would nevertheless create an additional development option for
property owners and developers, even if the market ultimately makes other forms of development more
attractive. They also discussed the possibility of more urban-style single-family development, including
taller homes on smaller lots with reduced setbacks. Examples from other Idaho communities and other
urban areas were discussed. The Committee noted that acceptance of this type of development may vary
depending on the surrounding neighborhood and context. The discussion concluded with recognition that
one of the goals of the proposed Starter Home Subdivision standards is to provide additional housing
options and potentially help reduce housing costs.
The group discussed the proposed allowance for single-unit attached dwellings within a Starter Home
Subdivision. Staff clarified that "attached" refers to side-by-side dwelling units and would not include
separate dwelling units located above one another. A separate dwelling located above another unit would
generally be addressed as a condominium or other multi-unit arrangement under the applicable building
and zoning regulations. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) would remain subject to the City's existing
provisions. They discussed the potential impact of Starter Home Subdivisions on existing neighborhoods
zoned RE and RP. A concern was raised that property owners in partially developed areas could see a
future development of four or more acres occur, potentially resulting in smaller lots and a development
pattern different from what surrounding residents anticipated. Staff explained that the Starter Home
Subdivision would be a permitted use by right when the statutory requirements are met and would not
require a discretionary zoning approval by the City Council. The preliminary plat would provide an
opportunity for public participation, but the City's discretion would be limited because the use is required
by state law. The importance of making the public aware of the state requirements and the potential
development implications. It was noted that the City would be required to adopt code provisions
implementing the state legislation by February 1, and that any changes to the state law would need to
come from the Legislature. Staff indicated that there did not appear to be many existing four-acre parcels
within the City that are currently zoned RE or RP. Discussion also noted that future annexations could
create situations where the Starter Home Subdivision standards would apply, including properties annexed
and developed under residential zoning.
The group discussed whether the City could require or encourage variation in building elevations and
housing types within a Starter Homestead Division. Staff explained that requiring architectural variation
would be difficult because the City's existing code generally does not impose such design requirements
and architectural standards can be subjective and could add additional review time. It was noted that
developers seeking to create a higher-quality development could voluntarily provide multiple housing
types or elevations. The group discussed whether additional development incentives, such as increased

density, could be used to encourage greater variety in housing design. Staff noted that the state statute
provides relatively limited flexibility for adding additional requirements and standards beyond allowing
smaller lots.
A Committee member asked whether the group could continue meeting after the Starter Home
Subdivision code is completed to review existing zoning regulations and identify other changes that could
improve development flexibility. Discussion included issues such as tandem parking, minimum lot sizes,
and other development standards that could potentially be adjusted based on feedback from developers
and other participants. It was noted that the group's discussions could provide useful information to the
City Council and Planning and Zoning Committee as they consider future zoning and development-code
amendments. Any future meetings involving City Council members would need to comply with applicable
open meeting requirements.
The group discussed concerns raised by City Council regarding private streets in Planned Unit
Developments. Concerns included emergency access, illegal parking, long-term maintenance, and how
private neighborhoods would finance major road repairs in the future. Staff explained that permit fees are
intended to cover the City's cost of providing permitting services and generally would not be an
appropriate mechanism for funding long-term infrastructure maintenance. Impact fees were discussed as a
potential mechanism, subject to applicable legal requirements.
The distinction between public and private streets was discussed. In a typical subdivision, property taxes
contribute to the City's infrastructure system while the City is responsible for maintaining public streets. In
a PUD with private streets, property owners are responsible for maintaining their own streets while
continuing to pay property taxes. The group discussed whether this difference should be considered when
evaluating the City's policies regarding private streets. Staff and participants discussed whether a narrower
public street section could be developed that would reduce the right-of-way requirements while
maintaining adequate emergency access and utility infrastructure. The concept of a narrower street
without on-street parking was discussed. Snow storage was identified as a significant consideration.
Examples from other communities and private-street developments were discussed, including designated
snow-storage areas within developments. Staff noted that utility easements, water and sewer requirements,
stormwater, power, gas, and other infrastructure requirements would also need to be accommodated even
with a narrower street section. Conversation was had as to whether PUDs remain appropriate for certain
infill properties, particularly small or unusually shaped parcels where construction of a standard public
street may not be practical. Participants noted that PUDs can provide a useful development tool for infill
properties and that eliminating private streets entirely could make some difficult-to-develop properties
infeasible. Examples of existing infill developments were discussed. There was discussion that the City
could potentially retain PUDs for smaller or unusual infill properties while creating alternative
development standards for larger properties where a conventional public-street subdivision would be more
practical. The group discussed the possibility of modifying the PUD regulations rather than eliminating
PUDs entirely. One concept was to limit PUD eligibility to qualifying infill properties while requiring
larger developments to comply with revised subdivision standards. The Committee discussed the potential
timing and consequences of making significant amendments to the PUD regulations. Members expressed
concern that eliminating PUDs or private streets immediately could negatively affect developers who have
already purchased property or begun planning projects under the existing regulations. The possibility of
temporarily retaining the current PUD regulations while the City develops comprehensive amendments
was discussed. This could allow staff and the City Council time to consider multiple proposed changes

together rather than making individual amendments at different times. It was noted that making changes to
private-street standards could require developers to substantially redesign projects and could affect the
financial feasibility of projects already under development. Staff also noted that leaving the current PUD
process available while changes are being considered could result in an increase in PUD applications as
developers attempt to proceed under the existing regulations before any amendments take effect. A
potential approach discussed was to retain PUDs under the existing standards for qualifying infill
properties while evaluating amendments for larger developments. It was noted that a clear definition of
"infill" would be necessary, potentially based on parcel size, location, or other characteristics. The Board
discussed whether larger developments should continue to qualify as PUDs. Members expressed the view
that properties surrounded by existing development on most sides could reasonably be considered infill,
even when the acreage is substantial. The example of a large property located within the City was
discussed as an example of development that could help address infill and reduce development pressure on
areas outside the City. The group also discussed the possibility that an acreage limitation could be
circumvented by dividing a larger property into multiple smaller PUDs. Members noted that any
amendment would need to be structured carefully to avoid creating unintended workarounds. Discussion
continued regarding the relationship between PUD requirements and housing development. Members
expressed concern that certain PUD requirements may make individually owned housing less feasible and
could result in more rental development. The group discussed whether changes to public street
requirements, road standards, or other development requirements could provide greater flexibility while
still supporting individually owned housing. This discussion concluded with interest in continuing to
evaluate the PUD regulations, private-street standards, and infill development options rather than
eliminating the PUD process without an alternative framework.
The Committee discussed the concept of allowing private streets in certain circumstances. One suggestion
was to require a homeowner’s association or similar agreement to establish a mechanism for collecting
funds specifically for long-term private roadway maintenance. Members noted that some municipalities
address private-road maintenance through covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Staff
expressed concern regarding the City's ability to regulate or modify private agreements and the potential
legal implications of requiring such provisions. Staff indicated that the issue would be discussed with the
City's legal department. Another potential approach discussed was modifying other PUD requirements in
exchange for requiring public streets. The example of reducing the required percentage of common
landscape area was raised as a possible tradeoff. The discussion emphasized the concept of identifying
what flexibility could be provided while maintaining appropriate public infrastructure requirements.
The group discussed establishing a recurring meeting or review process focused specifically on
subdivision and zoning regulations. Staff noted that Public Works currently conducts periodic discussions
with engineers and developers regarding process and code changes, and members indicated that a similar
discussion focused on planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations could be useful. The proposed format
would allow participants to discuss what is working, identify challenges, and share ideas or practices used
in other communities.
The Committee briefly discussed the applicability of the new state requirements to smaller cities and
whether some communities may not yet be aware of the requirements. The discussion referenced
population thresholds and the applicability of the legislation to cities meeting those thresholds.

Staff and participants also discussed the population living in unincorporated Bonneville County. It was
noted that a significant portion of the county's population resides outside incorporated city limits,
including areas within existing water and sewer service districts. The discussion highlighted the scale of
development occurring outside municipal boundaries and its relationship to regional planning.

Next Steps
Staff advised that the draft Starter Home Subdivision code would likely be presented to the Planning
Commission with additional clarifications and potentially other related code amendments in October and
City Council in November or December. Staff noted that the goal would be to make the various provisions
as cohesive as possible.

Adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Ann Peterson, Recorder

DATE:
Wednesday, October 7, 2026
AGENDA:
Work Session
FROM:
Zachary Jones, City Attorney
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
Title
Executive Session (40)
..end
Action
..recommendation
To call an executive session pursuant to Idaho Code § 74-206(1)(f) to communicate with legal counsel for the
public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not
yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated.
..end
Description, Background Information, Purpose:
..body
This executive session is to communicate with legal counsel for the City to discuss the legal ramifications of and
legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated.
Council will reconvene after this session.
..end
This item has been reviewed by the Mayor’s Office.
File # 26-405
Memorandum

DATE:
Thursday, October 15, 2026
AGENDA:
Work Session
FROM:
Zachary Jones, City Attorney
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney
Title
..title
Settlement Agreement for City v. Van Deventers (5)
..end
Action
..recomme nda tion
Grant authority to the City Attorney to negotiate and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a
settlement agreement with Karen and John Van Deventer (or take other appropriate action).
..end
..body
..end
This item has been reviewed by the Mayor’s Office.
Memorandum
File # 26-413

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