At the Oct. 13, 2025 work session, city planning staff presented a proposal to revise R‑2 and R‑3 residential zoning standards: reduce minimum lot widths and lot area, adjust setbacks and combine R‑2 and R‑3 into a single district to reflect historic platting and enable more homeowners to renovate or modestly expand existing homes without repeatedly seeking variances.

Why staff proposed the change: staff said much of the city was platted before incorporation in 1959 with lots commonly narrower than today’s R‑2 and R‑3 minimums. Staff reported roughly 63% of R‑2/R‑3 parcels do not meet current minimum lot standards; in R‑3 specifically staff said 90% of lots are nonconforming. Nonconformity, staff argued, prevents homeowners from building additions, accessory structures, driveway expansions or pursuing lot splits and so inhibits reinvestment and neighborhood preservation.

The proposed standards: staff proposed a single combined district with a 4,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area, a 40‑ft minimum lot width, a 15‑ft front yard setback, a 25‑ft rear setback, combined side yards of 14 ft with a 5‑ft minimum on one side, and a modest increase in maximum lot coverage. Staff said those dimensions approximate historical building patterns and would move conformity to about 99.6% of parcels in the former R‑2 and R‑3 areas.

Examples and effects: staff showed historic plats (including a 1918 plat along Division Avenue) and side‑by‑side parcel examples. In the examples staff demonstrated that existing houses and detached garages that now fall outside today’s required building envelope would fit within the proposed envelope, allowing owners to add small additions or keep a building pattern consistent with the neighborhood. Staff said the change is intended to preserve neighborhood character while allowing reinvestment that is typically less expensive than moving to a new house.

Next steps and further work: staff said this is the start of a multi‑step revision. They plan further discussions in November to address related items such as duplex permissions, garage requirements and other code cleanups so new rules don’t create new nonconformities. Staff said they have included public‑safety partners in the review and will continue outreach.

Council questions and concerns: councilmembers asked whether the change would create more duplex lots and whether smaller side setbacks were compatible with building and fire codes; staff said many duplexes already exist in R‑2 zones and that the proposal would allow duplexes only under a separate standard and that staff have coordinated with building and fire partners on setbacks.

Ending: staff said they will return with more detailed graphics and code language in November for further review.