Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City planning director proposes smaller front setbacks and design review for accessory dwelling units in West Allis
Summary
City planning director Steve Sher presented a proposed amendment to Section 19.42 to align ADU front-yard setbacks with underlying zoning, restrict one ADU per lot, and require building permits and design review for accessory buildings over 150 sq ft; plan commission recommended approval and council took questions.
Steve Sher, director of city planning, presented an ordinance amendment to Section 19.42 of the zoning code to redefine accessory structures, align front‑yard setbacks for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with the underlying zoning district and add basic design standards for larger accessory buildings.
Sher told the Common Council the city proposes to remove the blanket 60‑foot front‑yard setback that currently applies to ADUs and instead require the ADU setback to be “consistent with the applicable zoning district,” so an ADU in an RB district would follow the RB front‑yard requirement. He said the amendment would also require a building permit and a design review for any accessory structure over 150 square feet so that roof pitch, siding and exterior materials better match the principal dwelling.
“Right now … the front yard setback for an accessory dwelling unit is 60 ft from the front property line,” Sher said. The change, he said, would allow ADUs to sit closer to the street where the base zoning already permits that pattern and would make accessory structures more visually compatible with the main house.
Sher clarified that detached garages, sheds, gazebos and similar structures would remain regulated; the ordinance would continue to allow only one accessory dwelling unit per lot while other accessory buildings (sheds, gazebos) remain subject to lot‑coverage and setback limits. He also said the plan commission has recommended approval and that no formal objections were filed after public notice.
Council members asked for specifics during a follow‑up exchange, including whether temporary fabric carports would be affected (Sher said the rules focus on permanent structures and that certain fabric structures are not allowed) and how attached vs. detached carports are classified. Sher said an attached garage with an attached shed roof would be treated as part of the principal building, while standalone detached structures are regulated under the accessory‑structure rules.
The council closed the public hearing on the ordinance after questions; no final council action on the amendment was recorded that evening.
