Midway City Council denies proposed change to setback rule after public hearing

The Midway City Council on Tuesday denied an ordinance amendment that would have amended Midway City Municipal Code section 16.13.0.17 to allow front-setback averaging when a lot has no existing dwelling on one side.

The change was requested by property owners John and Connie Taylor for a vacant lot at 200 East (the Springer single-lot subdivision). City staff and the Midway City Planning Commission recommended denial; the council voted to deny the amendment after a public hearing and discussion about citywide impacts.

City staff described the request as specific to the Taylorsproperty but framed as a citywide code text amendment that would apply to similarly situated lots. Michael (city staff) said the code the applicants sought to change currently allows averaging of front setbacks only for a dwelling located between two existing dwellings on the same side of the street and within a set distance of each other. He explained that the Taylorslot lacks existing dwellings on the north side and that the applicants asked the council to allow averaging using the nearest two dwellings on the same side of the street within 300 feet.

The Taylors told the council they intended to build a primarily single-level home and that, because of the lotgeometry and a public right-of-way dedication, they face a narrow buildable envelope. John Taylor said the lot measures about 263 feet in depth and that the subdivision process left the parcel with a larger frontage dedication than he expected; he said, "we're just trying to build our home, move to the city, and we enjoy Midway." Connie Taylor told the council the private drive (Wellness Drive/Ami Alley) to the north is on adjacent property and constrained their options.

Staff and the planning commission noted the existing code already provides some rear-setback relief in narrow, shallow lots: code section 16.11.0.060(c)(1)(a) lets a rear setback be reduced to no less than 30 feet to permit a structure depth up to 45 feet when the front and rear setbacks otherwise limit a dwelling to less than 45 feet. Under current setbacks in the R-122 zone, staff calculated the Taylorslot would allow house depths ranging roughly from about 36 feet at one end to about 43 feet at the other end; the proposed amendment would raise the potential to a 45-foot structure depth by reducing the front setback in that specific parcelexample.

Council discussion centered on whether a narrow, case-specific accommodation for one corner or end lot should be written into a citywide code change. Several council members said they supported the intent to help a property owner but were concerned the proposed text could be applied broadly and unpredictably across the city, including on corner lots and in areas with nonconforming older homes. One councilmember urged staff to consider language that would "taper off" the averaging allowance so it would help a lot like the Taylors' but not create an open-ended rule that could be exploited elsewhere.

After deliberation the council voted to deny the ordinance amendment. The motion to deny accepted planning staff findings that the proposed amendment would expand allowable dwelling footprints by reducing front setbacks and that the change would have too broad an impact on the city. Council members voting in favor of denial recorded their votes as "aye." The planning commissionrecommendation to deny the amendment was noted in the council record.

Council members and staff agreed that the Taylors retain other procedural paths, including pursuing a variance through the cityboard of adjustment or proposing a narrower code text change. The council's denial of this specific ordinance amendment does not prevent staff from researching alternative code language; one councilmember asked staff to analyze a tapered approach and report back at a future meeting.

The council closed the agenda item by noting the planning commission had considered the potential unintended consequences, and that protecting visibility and the open character of streets had been a central reason for the 2022 setback changes in R-122 and RA-143 zones.

Votes at a glance: - Ordinance 2025-O-03 (amend 16.13.0.17, exception to front and side setback requirements): Denied by council vote; planning commission recommended denial. (Vote recorded in council minutes as motion carried to deny.)

What happens next: The Taylors may pursue a variance through the board of adjustment or ask staff to draft a more narrowly tailored code amendment for council consideration. The council asked staff to analyze alternatives and return with findings.