Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Building Height topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleton planners adopt zoning revisions after debate over building‑height rule
Summary
The Middleton Planning Commission approved revisions to Chapter 10 of the municipal code on May 27, 2025, including a new building‑height measurement and consolidated height‑bonus provisions, after extended discussion about a 15% limit drawn from Madison’s ordinance that critics said could force partial removal of upper stories.
The Middleton Planning Commission on May 27 adopted a package of zoning revisions that revise how building height is measured and consolidate bonus‑height provisions. The commission debated a contentious 15% limit in the proposed building‑height definition but voted to adopt the ordinance as presented.
The ordinance change consolidates height‑bonus language in Article 4 and introduces a measurement method intended to be more flexible for sloped sites. Planning staff noted the 15% reference was drawn from Madison’s ordinance and described the illustrative building envelope. "This drawing is meant to show a building envelope. This is not meant to be a design of a building," Mark, planning staff, told the commission during the hearing.
Bill Connors of Smart Growth Greater Madison had urged the commission to remove or raise the 15% limit, saying that on lots that slope downward from front to back the limit would “effectively put that step‑down requirement back in” and could force partial removal of the top story on the rear facade. Connors said the change could reduce the number of housing units and raise costs for new housing.
Commissioners discussed alternatives including striking the building‑height changes and moving forward with the uncontested portions of the package (fence rules and Research Park conditional uses). Several commissioners said they preferred to resolve building‑height language now to avoid delays for applicants waiting on clarity. Commissioners also asked staff to clarify how multiple measurement points would be averaged and what a meaningful step‑back distance should be.
After discussion, a motion to adopt the zoning revisions as presented was moved, seconded and carried unanimously by voice vote. The ordinance adoption includes the consolidated bonus‑height rules and the revised measurement approach; staff and commissioners noted further tinkering could occur in future amendments.
The commission’s action addresses long‑standing concerns about how height is measured on sloping sites and aims to provide clearer expectations for applicants while balancing neighborhood sight‑line concerns. The ordinance package was adopted by voice vote with no recorded dissent. The planning office will post the adopted language and associated findings in the municipal record.
