Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Main Street Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midway council debates —walkable— Main Street model versus preserving rural, historic character
Summary
Councilors split over whether to write a code that produces Park-City-style zero-lot-line, tightly built street fronts or a more open, eclectic Main Street with setbacks and landscaping; staff proposed side/rear setbacks and optional front-setback limits.
Council discussion shifted from specific permitted uses to a broader design debate over the future look and feel of Main Street. Staff presented two visual models and asked whether the governing code should prioritize 0-foot lot lines and continuous street frontage or encourage set-asides, landscaping and staggered setbacks that preserve Midways historic, open character.
"Urban is monolithic," said Speaker 3 during a lengthy explanation of rural-versus-urban design principles, arguing that Midways appeal comes from its eclectic, lower-density pattern: "Rural is openness." Several council members urged caution about writing rules that would incentivize tear-downs of older homes; others argued the code should actively guide walkability through front, side and rear setbacks.
Staff described options: the current C3 zone has a 10-foot minimum front setback and a 30-foot maximum; councilors discussed raising the desirable front setback to 15 or 20 feet while allowing a 10-foot porch projection to the sidewalk. For side and rear yards staff proposed 10-foot setbacks (15 feet where commercial abuts residential) to create spacing between structures and protect adjacent homes.
Council members recommended incentives and flexible tools (for example PUD allowances or legislative development agreements) to preserve historic buildings while permitting context-sensitive new development. No final code decision was made; staff will draft setback language and preservation incentives for future review.
