Speaker 1, a city staff presenter, outlined a package of residential zoning ordinance amendments intended to align local regulations with the comprehensive plan and to make it easier for developers and homeowners to add housing types often called the 'missing middle.' Staff framed the changes as shifting routine PUD flexibilities into the baseline code so outcomes are more predictable for both the community and developers.

Among the proposals, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) would be permitted on single-family lots only; Speaker 1 said, "These standards are meant to ensure that accessory dwelling units are accessory to the main use on the property." ADUs would be limited to 1,200 square feet and to no more than 30% of the rear yard, must be shorter than the main home, and require a clear pedestrian path to the door for emergency access. Parking for ADUs would not require additional off-street spaces where on-street parking is available, but properties without on-street parking would need one unencumbered off-street space.

Staff flagged utility connections as a key practical constraint for tiny-home or detached ADUs, noting that separate water/sewer meters or plumbing compliance may be the most expensive barrier. Speaker 1 said staff will coordinate with utilities and plumbing officials as the draft proceeds.

On lot sizes and 'missing middle' housing, staff presented data showing an average R1 single-family lot of roughly 11,542 square feet and examples where duplexes and triplexes have long existed in older neighborhoods with much smaller separations than current code allows. To reflect those patterns, staff proposed reducing the R1 minimum lot size from 7,500 to 5,500 square feet, allow two-family homes in R1 without the current separation requirement, and permit triplexes on lots of at least 10,000 square feet. For R2, the single-family minimum would be reduced to 4,500 square feet; R3 would retain a single-family scale with development capacity governed by setbacks, parking, stormwater and other site conditions.

Speaker 1 said the city will continue to use PUDs where site constraints or unusual designs require them, but many flexibilities currently delivered through PUDs were routinely granted and effectively changed local practice. The staff goal is to codify frequently used flexibilities so approvals are more certain and applied uniformly.

For multifamily projects, staff proposed replacing a strict 1:1 open-space requirement with a menu of amenity options tailored to project size. Examples on the menu include community gardens, a play lot (minimum 1,500 square feet with at least two pieces of equipment), courts, walking trails and indoor gathering spaces. Undeveloped open space remains an option but would reduce the number of required amenities if provided. Staff said developments that include affordable housing units could receive credits to reduce required amenities.

Parking standards would be "right-sized," Speaker 1 said, to reflect unit mix and local context rather than a flat two-spaces-per-unit formula that often over-parks sites. For industrial and warehouse uses, staff suggested either applying the Corporate Park approach (no universal minimum, with on-site provision and performance standards) or a graduated formula: one space per 500 square feet for the first 10,000 square feet, then one space per 5,000 square feet thereafter.

Other clarifications in the packet include separate definitions for accessory building vs. accessory use, explicit rules for shade structures (gazebos and pergolas), a proposal to allow wider driveways (the greater of 30% of lot width up to 35 feet, with a 5-foot side setback for snow storage), and adding a two-year expiration for site plan approvals if a building permit has not been pulled.

Council members and other participants generally expressed support for reducing PUD delays and for the 'right-sizing' approach. Speaker 1 said the draft will be returned as an agenda item for a recommendation at the regular meeting in January, at which point council members can advance some or all of the six topic areas. No formal motions or votes were taken during this workshop session.

The next procedural step staff provided was to place the package on a future meeting agenda for a formal recommendation and further tweaking; members asked for a month to review the draft materials before that meeting.