Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Cottage Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison creates 'cottage court' housing option as council seeks missing‑middle units
Summary
The council adopted a substitute ordinance authorizing cottage courts — small clusters of single‑family or duplex units oriented around a shared courtyard — intended to increase 'missing‑middle' housing options; the ordinance includes standards on lot size, unit orientation and limits on attached garages.
The Madison Common Council voted 20–0 on Dec. 9 to adopt a substitute to the zoning code that creates a new "cottage court" housing type intended to expand small‑scale, missing‑middle housing options across the city.
Supporters described cottage courts as compact, pedestrian‑oriented clusters of modest homes arranged around a shared courtyard that can provide more diverse ownership and rental choices while fitting within existing neighborhoods. Ald. Martinez Rutherford, who sponsored the initiative, said the approach is already used in other cities and could provide seniors and others with alternative housing forms.
Staff and developers said the ordinance aims to keep the typology small and nimble: cottage courts are permissible on lots between 10,000 square feet and one acre, require building orientation toward a shared courtyard, and allow surface parking, detached shared garages and carports but disincentivize attached individual garages that could turn a development into an internal circulation road.
Speakers from Meridian/Viridian Homes and other registrants supported the concept but asked for some refinements, particularly on garage definitions and feasibility on small parcels. Staff said the code was intentionally flexible to allow multiple site solutions and stressed that proposals will be reviewed by zoning, fire and other agencies for utility, circulation and safety concerns.
Several council members asked how many existing parcels might accommodate cottage courts, and staff said a parcel‑level inventory was not provided at the hearing; they noted the ordinance is an enabling change that will be refined as projects come forward. With two dozen alders participating in debate, the council recorded 20 ayes and the substitute passed. Staff and sponsors said they expect to return to council with potential tweaks as experience builds.
