City staff outline options to implement state 'starter home' law; council backs advisory committee approach

City planning staff gave an extended presentation on Aug. 10 about the new state requirement to allow “starter home subdivisions,” which staff said applies in every residential zone and prescribes broad parameters such as a minimum subdivision size of four contiguous acres and a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet. The statute’s purpose, staff said, is to promote attainable homeownership, but it leaves several important elements—such as the definition of “attainable,” lot coverage, and density—unspecified.

“We do have to adopt something by February 1, so just be cognizant of that,” Director Sander told council as staff outlined the time pressure and a recommended timeline for ordinance drafting and public review. Carrie (planning staff) described three approaches for council: (A) adopt the state language as written, which would meet statutory requirements but likely defeat the law’s intent locally; (B) adopt after a targeted set of code changes to make the starter home subdivision functional in local zones; or (C) form an advisory committee of planning commissioners, engineers, developers, public works and other experts to craft options that meet the law’s intent while addressing density, lot coverage and parking concerns. “Option C is the one that gives me the most information,” a council member said in support.

Staff emphasized several implementation challenges: parking minimums and driveway/spacing standards that could make the smallest prototype lots infeasible under current city rules; public‑notice and appeal limits because starter home subdivisions are a permitted use (with preliminary plat review at Planning Commission); and potential “bait‑and‑switch” concerns where parcels previously annexed under different expectations could be developed under the new rules. Staff and council also discussed possible local measures—such as allowing attached units, adjusting lot coverage, or creating optional two‑acre cottage court variants—that could achieve the statute’s affordability goals while preserving neighborhood compatibility.

Councilors generally favored Option C: staff will assemble a technical/advisory committee, aim for a draft before planning commission in October and return to council with recommendations in November/January so the city can meet the state deadline; staff said Option A would be kept as a legal fallback if the committee process does not produce workable code by the statutory deadline.

Provenance: topicintro SEG 998 topfinish SEG 3190