Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleton P&Z recommends most zoning code amendments to council but rejects proposed side‑easement change
Summary
The Middleton Planning & Zoning Commission recommended city zoning code changes to City Council — including separate street numbers for accessory dwellings and reduced parking in a defined downtown corridor — but declined to recommend removing five‑foot side utility easements, asking staff to revise that section.
The Middleton Planning & Zoning Commission on Feb. 9 recommended that City Council approve a package of proposed zoning code amendments with three explicit exceptions: do not approve a proposed removal of five‑foot side utility easements (MCC 5‑4‑10‑5B); approve a change permitting separate street addresses for second dwellings/ADUs; and approve limited, reduced parking requirements for duplexes, triplexes and commercial lots in the narrow corridor between Piccadilly Avenue and Dewey Avenue.
Planning staff presented changes that would: revise utility‑easement language to remove automatic five‑foot side easements on every lot (staff said the city engineer had suggested removal but Idaho Power objected in a letter); change the code so detached second dwellings could receive distinct street numbers (staff and GIS advised this improves EMS response and delivery accuracy); reduce some commercial parking requirements and allow lower parking counts for small duplex/triplex units in older multifamily zones (staff suggested a 20% reduction for specified downtown commercial lots and a 2‑space per unit standard for duplexes/triplexes in a defined older area).
On ADU addressing, planning staff explained that using full street numbers for a second dwelling (for example, 217 and 218 Paradise) avoids confusion that can delay emergency responders. "GIS has said they'd rather do street numbers," staff said, noting separate utilities or meters may be required in some cases but could be managed administratively.
Commission debate centered on public safety, utility access and neighborhood impacts. Several commissioners supported limiting reduced parking and duplex/triplex relaxed requirements to the small, older zone between Dewey and Piccadilly to avoid encouraging similar reductions for large new apartment complexes. Public commenters objected strongly to removing side easements and to increased density in older neighborhoods; one longtime resident said narrow side easements and small lot sizes make rear yards unusable and warned against broad code changes.
The commission moved to recommend the city's application to council with the exception of MCC 5‑4‑10‑5B (do not recommend removal of side easements). The motion (which also approved ADU address changes and the parking exceptions limited to Piccadilly–Dewey) passed by the commission.
Next steps: the commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to City Council for their consideration; staff said they will revisit the easement language with the city engineer and affected utilities before forwarding a final draft.
The commission adjourned; the next meeting was scheduled for April.
