Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford planning commission weighs changes to residential standards — setbacks, height, coverage and minimum size
Summary
Commissioners reviewed proposed changes to residential development standards, including side and front setbacks, an increase in main building height and higher site coverage in some districts. The commission debated whether to retain any minimum dwelling size and directed staff to refine code language and return with references to state law.
At the April 9, 2025 meeting, the Milford City Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed proposed edits to the city’s residential development standards that would alter setbacks, building height and site coverage and raised questions about minimum dwelling sizes.
Staff presented a set of draft changes that included: reducing some side setbacks to a 15-foot minimum for primary dwellings while requiring a 25-foot side setback where a garage or accessory building opens onto a side street; increasing the front setback from 20 feet to 25 feet in some instances to ensure vehicles can fit on driveways without encroaching on sidewalks; increasing main building height from 25 feet to 30 feet; and raising maximum building site coverage from 40% to 50% in certain MR zoning districts. Staff showed a corner-lot example to illustrate how the different setbacks would apply when a garage faced a side street.
Commissioners discussed minimum dwelling-unit sizes in the code. Current language in the city code as presented in the packet referenced minimum sizes for multifamily units (various figures and wording), and commissioners noted potential conflicts with state rules. Members cited different numbers from state code during the discussion (including references to both 1,000 and 1,100 square feet), and the group declined to adopt a strict minimum at this time. Several commissioners said they preferred to tie regulation to setback and lot standards rather than set a minimum floor area. Staff said they would continue to research other jurisdictions’ codes and state requirements, clean up the code language, and return with a revised draft and citations for the commission’s next meeting.
No formal vote was taken; commissioners reached informal agreement on several specific setbacks and directed staff to codify the changes and present a cleaned-up draft with legal references at a future meeting. Commissioners noted the goal of increasing housing supply while balancing lot constraints for smaller historic lots.
