River Falls staff propose zoning changes to allow ADUs, reduce R1 lot size and broaden "missing-middle" housing

River Falls staff presented a comprehensive package of proposed residential and industrial zoning changes at a planning workshop, arguing the updates would implement the comprehensive plan and reduce uncertainty for developers.

The staff presenter (Speaker 1) said the package focuses on land-use and housing elements and is designed to make outcomes more predictable by codifying standards that developers now obtain through planned unit developments (PUDs). "At the lower level, there is the most discretion andwe're creating policies," the presenter said, describing a pyramid of policy, regulations and permits that frames the recommendations.

Key elements of the proposal include allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on single-family lots, subject to size and design limits; changing how setbacks are measured; lowering minimum lot sizes in residential districts; and replacing rigid multifamily open-space rules with a menu of amenity options. "These standards are meant to ensure that accessory dwelling units are accessory to the main use on the property," Speaker 1 said.

On ADUs, staff proposed: permitting ADUs only on single-family lots (not on duplexes), limiting ADUs to 1,200 square feet and no more than 30% of the rear yard (the city's existing accessory-structure cap), requiring a clear pedestrian path to the ADU door for emergency access, and not requiring additional off-street parking when on-street parking is available. The presenter cautioned that utility hookups (water and sewer connections and meters) often present the largest barrier to ADU construction.

Staff also summarized data findings used to shape the changes: the average R1 single-family lot size was reported at about 11,542 square feet while the average R1 duplex lot was about 12,950 square feet. The presenter said the code currently allows duplexes in R1 only if they are separated by 1,400 feet or are in developments over 2 acres, but staff found the actual average separation is approximately 158 feet across the city, suggesting the rule does not reflect existing development patterns.

Proposed residential changes by district include reducing the R1 minimum lot size from 7,500 to 5,500 square feet, allowing two-family homes without a separation requirement, and permitting triplexes on lots of at least 10,000 square feet. For R2, staff proposed a new single-family minimum of 4,500 square feet; R3 would retain a single-family scale while allowing multifamily intensity to be governed by setbacks, parking and stormwater constraints.

For multifamily projects, staff would replace the current mandatory 1:1 open-space standard with a graduated amenity menu tied to project size. Options would include community gardens; picnic shelters and lawn area; play lots with a minimum of 1,500 square feet and at least two pieces of equipment; multiuse fields (minimum 800 square feet); indoor or outdoor gathering spaces (minimum 500 square feet); and dog-run or pet-exercise areas. Staff said projects that provide undeveloped open space at a 1:2 ratio could qualify for half the required amenities.

Staff urged calibrating multifamily parking requirements to expected use rather than a flat two spaces per unit; the presenter said that standard often over-parks and triggers PUD processes. "Requiring a studio apartment to provide two parking spaceswhen there might be a lot of studio apartmentsover-parks," Speaker 1 said, arguing the change would "right-size" parking.

The package also includes miscellaneous clarifications: separate definitions for accessory-building versus accessory-use; clearer rules for shade structures (gazebos and pergolas versus enclosed sheds) for fire-safety and building-code purposes; a modest expansion of allowable driveway width (the greater of 30% of lot width up to 35 feet with a 5-foot side setback); and adding an expiration for site-plan approvals if a building permit is not pulled within two years.

For industrial and warehouse parking, staff proposed either a revised formula (1 space per 500 square feet for the first 10,000 square feet, then 1 per 5,000 square feet afterward) or adopting a corporate-park approach that removes parking minimums but requires on-site provision and performance standards. Council members noted the challenge that tenants change over time and asked that site plans document potential future expansion of parking.

Speaker 1 acknowledged limits: "This isn't a magic bullet to solving affordable housing," they said, noting ADUs and missing-middle changes remove barriers and create options but do not guarantee a wave of new units. Staff recommended returning the package to the council for a formal recommendation at the regular January meeting, with the option for council members to advance some items and continue refining others.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the workshop; staff requested direction and a timeline for when the council would consider a recommendation. The council and meeting chair signaled general support for further review and for bringing the package back in January.