Idaho Falls council approves broad lot-frontage variance for landlocked parcel after split debate

The Idaho Falls City Council voted to grant a subdivision variance that reduces the municipal requirement of 50 feet of lot frontage on public streets to 0 for a large parcel north of West Anderson Street, authorizing the change after a lengthy public hearing and robust council deliberation.

The request, presented by Community Development Director Center and the applicant, who identified himself as developer Blake Jumper, would allow interior lots to be accessed by easements and cross-access rather than conventional frontage. Center told the council staff had prepared the required analysis and that "staff recommends approval" in the report because the parcel’s shape, limited access and existing easements create development constraints. Jumper said his immediate plan is a 55-unit affordable senior housing project and argued the parcel is effectively landlocked: "we truly do view it as a hardship," he said, describing why standard frontage would make development impractical.

The variance drew questions from several council members about precedent and alternatives. Opponents and some commissioners said the request was unusually broad because a variance normally attaches to specific lots and expressed concern that granting a blanket variance for the whole property could set a lasting precedent. Attorney and planning references noted that the variance, if granted, runs with the land. Ron Belneth, speaking on behalf of the Bishop Storehouse owner, said the property owner was not opposed to development but urged the council to ensure future plans meet safety and access requirements: "We're not against the project in any way," he said, but asked the council to guard against unintended problems.

Council members also debated whether the developer should pursue other tools such as a planned unit development (PUD) or a plat request. Director Center and the applicant both said those options had been discussed but that the applicant wanted the variance now to proceed toward site planning and to avoid creating flag lots that would be impractical to develop.

Councilmember Francis voted against the motion, stating he was not convinced all seven legal variance criteria were met, and raised concerns that the request had not exhausted alternatives such as a PUD. The motion to approve the variance carried on a roll call vote (Aye: Bradford, Larson, Freeman, Dingman; No: Francis, Lee). The council also approved the accompanying reason statement of relevant criteria and standards required by the subdivision ordinance by a separate vote.

What happens next: Director Center said a plat and site plan would follow the variance, and those specific proposals would be reviewed by fire, public works, planning and other departments to ensure drive and emergency access, utilities and safety standards are satisfied before final development is approved. The variance itself takes effect as a land-use decision that will apply to the property unless and until it is modified by lawful action.

Action recorded: Motion to approve a subdivision ordinance variance to reduce the minimum 50-foot lot frontage onto a public street to 0 for the parcel north of West Anderson Street (mover: Council member Radford; seconder: Bradford). Roll-call votes were read into the record and the motion carried.

Timeline: The public hearing opened at the start of the land-use segment, staff presented the code analysis and the applicant described the hardship and proposed use. The planning commission was split (4–3) on recommendation to the council. The council deliberated and then voted to approve the variance and the required reason statement.

Further context: The property is in the Anderson Bush Urban Renewal District and was annexed into the city in 1983. Staff noted the parcel’s irregular shape, restricted frontage on major corridors and the presence of basalt and other development constraints in their analysis.