Council tables proposed change to lot-size rules after hours-long debate

Midway City Council on an evening meeting reviewed Ordinance 2025-21, a code amendment that would require lots in certain zones to be 15% larger when a subdivision is not required to provide separate open space. Councilmembers and staff debated effects on small, family-owned parcels, administrative complexity for staff and whether the change meets the city’s long-range open-space goals.

The ordinance, described by city planning staff as an amendment to the land-use code (Title 16), would affect standard and small-scale subdivisions in specified residential zones. Michael, the planning staff lead, said the change was intended to “level out that playing field” between larger subdivisions that must provide 15% open space and smaller subdivisions that currently do not. He explained the proposal would change relevant sections for planned unit developments and standard subdivisions (Title 16.16) and for small subdivisions (Title 16.17), and that the requirement would make each lot “15% larger than the minimum acre specified in the zone requirements set forth in Title 16” when open space is not otherwise required.

Why it matters: Councilmembers framed the question two ways — whether the city should force larger lots where open space is not required, or instead require dedicated open space or other design controls (setbacks, building pads, or volume caps) to preserve neighborhood openness. Supporters of added lot size said the current rules allow some developers to gain extra lots by staying just under open-space thresholds. Opponents said the change would disproportionately affect long-time local families subdividing small parcels to keep children nearby.

Planning staff outlined how the current code treats open space by zone: some higher-density zones (R-1-7 and R-1-9) do not require open space; three other zones (R-1-11, R-1-15, R-1-22) require 15% open space for subdivisions of six acres or more; R-A-143 requires 15% at 10 acres. Michael said the ordinance would make smaller subdivisions in the R-1-11 and larger zones effectively require larger lots by increasing the minimum lot area by 15% when no separate open space is provided.

Public comment and council concerns: A resident speaking during public comment urged the council to consider who would be hurt by the change, saying the ordinance would “hurt the onesie twosie families that are trying to subdivide and keep their kids here.” The public speaker called the proposal a limitation on property rights for longtime local families and questioned whether larger lots actually translate into meaningful public open space or affordability benefits.

Council members pressed staff on several alternatives: requiring dedicated open space on lots instead of enlarging minimum lot sizes; capping building pad area or home volume to prevent “McMansion” footprints; increasing setbacks (which staff said the city already has used) or allowing clustering so open space is consolidated and managed without defaulting to larger lot sizes.

Staff analysis and examples: Michael presented 21 local subdivisions to show practical impacts. He said 14 of 21 would show no change under the proposed language, six would lose one buildable lot, and one subdivision would lose two lots — the most-impacted case. He said the change would affect a relatively small number of lots over a 15-year look-back but could be consequential for families who planned parcel splits under current expectations. He also noted the code’s complexity may increase staff workload because parcel owners often assume zoning alone determines developable lots without reading the detailed code.

Council action: After discussion and a motion to table the ordinance for further review and to consider alternatives (including clustering, restricting building volume or pad size, and changes to the open-space thresholds), the council voted to table Ordinance 2025-21 and revisit it following a combined planning commission/council work session on land-use and density. The tabling motion passed with the roll-call recorded in the meeting.

What’s next: Staff will bring the issue back for additional study and possible revision after a scheduled joint planning commission–city council work session where overall open-space thresholds, clustering options and other alternatives will be reviewed. Council indicated willingness to explore multiple tools (open-space percentage changes, clustering, setbacks, building pad or volume limitations) rather than rely on a single approach.

Ending: The council did not adopt the ordinance and left the proposal open for revision. Councilmembers said they want to balance protecting neighborhood openness, avoiding unintended burdens on small family-owned parcels and keeping the code administrable for staff.