Middleton planning workshop outlines new residential zones, higher minimum lots and revised setbacks

City planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission at a workshop on Oct. 26 discussed a proposed rewrite of Middleton's residential zoning categories that would replace the current R-1, R-2 and R-3 labels with a clearer tiered system and new minimum lot sizes, setbacks and design rules.

City Planner said the future land use map "is more of a vision and a guidance" while the zoning map and code provide the concrete rules for what can be built. The planner directed commissioners to Title 5, chapter 4 (the land use, setback and area table) and to the use table in the code as the primary tools for deciding allowable uses and dimensional standards.

The commission's discussion centered on three goals: (1) limit the broad flexibility of the current R-3 designation that commissioners said has been used to increase density, (2) create distinct residential categories to match community expectations, and (3) simplify administration by using clear lot-size minima and consistent frontage and setback standards.

Commissioner Walter said he favored reintroducing a stricter R-3 standard tied to a one-third-acre lot: "Our recommendation is, yes, R 3 is a 0.33, a third of an acre." Commissioners and staff discussed naming the new categories residential A (highest density) through residential E (lowest single-family densities) for the workshop conversation, then mapping those letters back to final zone names later.

Key numeric proposals discussed (staff-proposed starting points noted by the planner and commissioners): - Residential A: multifamily/mixed-use — current multifamily density was cited as about 12 units per acre; staff proposed a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and raising the height limit from 35 to 40 feet for multifamily buildings. Front setback cited at 20 feet for buildings (with discussion of reducing to 15 in some cases); minimum lot size listed as 10,000 ft2 for building sites. - Residential B: high-density single-family (patio/garden homes) — discussed target lot size about 4,500 ft2 and roughly 45 feet frontage, with 5–7 foot interior side setbacks debated; commissioners preferred 7 feet for side yards to reduce mechanical/maintenance conflicts. - Residential C: a commonly seen single-family lot standard — proposed at 6,000 ft2 with 60-foot width (roughly four homes per acre accounting for roads). - Residential D: transition single-family — discussed near 8,000 ft2 with a suggested 75-foot frontage. - Residential E: larger single-family — discussed at about 10,000 ft2 with a 90-foot frontage.

Setbacks and garage rules were a focal point. Staff proposed keeping living-space/front setbacks at roughly 20 feet but allowing a 25-foot setback for garages (or measuring 20 feet from the back of sidewalk instead of property line). Commissioners suggested exceptions: a 15-foot front setback would be allowed for alley-loaded patio homes, while front-loaded garages should remain farther from the sidewalk to prevent vehicle overhang on sidewalks. Rear setbacks were discussed at 20 feet with a 10-foot allowance for unenclosed patios.

Commissioners and staff also discussed side-street corner setbacks (20 feet), and increasing the permitted fence height in residential areas — commissioners indicated support for up to 7 or 8 feet in some circumstances, while noting they would not require higher fences for developers by default.

The planner warned against overcomplicating administration: calculating net versus gross buildable areas (subtracting roads, topography) is technically complex and often requires engineering review; the planner said relying on applicants' engineers or charging staff time to verify would be burdensome.

No formal action or vote occurred at the workshop. The commission directed staff to draft code language reflecting the discussed sizes, front/garage/front-of-sidewalk clarifications, side-yard minimums (7 feet for smaller lots; 10 feet for larger lots), and design guidance that would distinguish alley-loaded from front-loaded units. Staff also noted the intent to bring those draft changes back for further review before a formal recommendation to city council.

Ending: Commissioners agreed the draft lettered zones (A–E) would be refined with concrete minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks and returned as a formal proposal to City Council after additional code drafting and review.