RIVER FALLS — The River Falls City Council heard the first reading of what would be sweeping changes for the future of housing development in the city.

“These proposed amendments represent the first phase in the effort to implement the housing policy vision of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan,” Senior Planner Harley Mehlhorn said. “For the purpose of these ordinance amendments, we are focusing on items from the housing and land use elements.”

Flexibility on lot size, lot width, parking and setback recommendations has been increasingly approved for housing projects in the city as it was determined by city staff that it met the needs of the Comprehensive Plan and would not create issues in the neighborhoods.

In the 2018 and 2022 housing studies, the city found they need 313 additional multi-family for rent units, 258 single-family units, 81 twin-home units and 693 senior housing units by 2030.

“The Planned Unit Development [PUD] is helpful for providing flexibility, but it also creates uncertainty for the developer and the community, and lengthens the approval process,” Mehlhorn said. “In analyzing the flexibility that the city has historically granted via the PUD over time, we have identified areas where the same types of flexibility have been granted multiple times. Essentially, each of these approvals has set a new zoning standard, thereby creating policy.”

Mehlhorn said codifying the amendments presented at the meeting provides further consistency and equality for the developers during the approval process.

Three of the main amendment areas presented were Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), lot performance standards and multi-family performance standards.

The requirements of ADUs, which Mehlhorn described as smaller units built in the rear yard or separate units in the principal structure, were listed as one per lot with a single family home, a clear pedestrian path to the door, a limit on fence height requirements, a 1,200 square-foot and no more than 30% of the rear yard requirement, shorter than the main home, one parking space needed if no on-street parking, and subjection to minimum room sizes per building code. Mehlhorn said the code takes down some of the barriers of building the type of unit while balancing the integration into the neighborhood.

“ADUs are not intended to be the housing affordability silver bullet, but rather a niche tool to allow for more flexibility, such as solutions for age-in-place or multi-generational housing,” Mehlhorn said. “Where these have been implemented, even in much larger communities, very few in proportion have actually been constructed.”

Alderperson Todd Bjerstedt expressed concern about the ADUs, saying that he is not against them, but wants to know what people do with them when they no longer have a need for their family member to live there.

“My concern is, and I think the reason that a lot of communities have not allowed ADUs over the years, is that they turn into rental property,” Bjerstedt said.

Setbacks would be measured from the property line to the foundation rather than the overhang of the building. Additionally, minimum lot sizes would be removed for some types of housing in certain zones in favor of a housing density per acre system. Open space requirements would be adjusted to have increased open space amenities as units increased. Parking code would also be updated to factor in bedroom count rather than the previous two spaces per unit regulation. Those are a few of many proposals Mehlhorn presented.

Alderperson Scott Morrissette spoke in favor of the item, citing the frequent passage of PUDs in the city.

“I’m a firm believer that if we’re changing our own ordinances, or guidelines or rules, we don’t really have them,” Morrissette said.

Morrissette did mention a concern over the future of residential density in the city with the trending smaller lots. He asked that the city focuses on blending different lot sizes to benefit everyone. Multiple council members spoke against a change to allow for 35-foot driveways in single-family districts.

City Administrator Scot Simpson said council can send specific pieces of the proposal back to the Plan Commission for re-evaluation rather than sending back the entire thing. The item will return to council at a future meeting for a final decision to be made.