Madison’s Cottage Court Ordinance: Missing the “Middle” in Missing Middle Housing

The Common Council should refer this legislation back for meaningful stakeholder engagement before creating unintended consequences for residential neighborhoods.

Key Points

• Ordinance creates low-density housing and is unlikely to accomplish the city's stated goals.
  

• Key provisions contradict best practices, undermining goals for density, affordability, market acceptance, and neighborhood compatibility.
  

• Ordinance permits parking ramps and 16-car surface lots by right in residential neighborhoods.
  

• Lack of meaningful stakeholder engagement with builders, developers, or real estate professionals will create a new ordinance and political talking points, not housing.

The Greenwood Avenue Cottages in Shoreline, Washington, designed by Ross Chapin Architects, demonstrates what cottage courts can be: front porches, ample shared green space, landscaping, and a layout that builds community. Madison's ordinance requires none of this. Photo: Ross Chapin Architects.

Tonight, December 9, the Madison Common Council will vote on legislation to create a new housing type called “cottage courts.”^[1] I support cottage court housing and believe Madison should adopt an ordinance enabling its development. But the legislation before the Council contains significant deficiencies that will undermine its stated goals, create unintended consequences for residential neighborhoods, and likely result in another ordinance that sits unused on the books—much like Madison’s accessory dwelling unit regulations.

The Council should refer this ordinance back to the Plan Commission for meaningful stakeholder engagement and a thorough, objective staff analysis. Taking a little more time now to get this right will produce legislation that actually results in housing being built.

What Are Cottage Courts?

Cottage courts are clusters of small, detached homes arranged around a shared courtyard—a housing type that dates to the bungalow courts built along the West Coast in the 1920s.^[2] The central courtyard is the defining feature: it serves as the focal point for community gathering and socializing, with cottages oriented to face this shared space rather than the street.^[3] Done well, cottage courts foster a sense of community while providing the privacy of detached homes.

Daniel Parolek, the architect and urban designer who coined the term “missing middle housing” in 2010, describes cottage courts as one of several housing types that bridge the gap between single-family homes and large apartment buildings.^[4] His firm, Opticos Design, has become the leading authority on this housing type, and Madison’s planning staff cite Parolek’s book, Missing Middle Housing: Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today’s Housing Crisis, as a primary source for the proposed ordinance.^[5]

Why Cottage Courts Matter

Cottage courts address several housing challenges simultaneously. They provide an alternative for empty nesters and seniors who want to downsize but remain in their neighborhoods—and when they do, they free up larger single-family homes for growing families. They offer first-time buyers an entry point into homeownership at a lower price than traditional single-family homes. They appeal to single professionals and small households seeking community without the transience of apartment living.

The shared courtyard creates opportunities for neighborly interaction that conventional subdivisions often lack. Residents know their neighbors. Children have safe outdoor play space. The elderly have built-in social connections that combat isolation. When designed well, cottage courts create genuine community—something increasingly rare in American housing.

Done right, cottage courts also allow gentle density increases in established neighborhoods without the scale or visual impact of apartment buildings. They maintain the character of single-family areas while adding housing units. This is what “missing middle” housing is supposed to accomplish.

The problem is that Madison’s ordinance contradicts much of what makes cottage courts successful.

This Isn’t Missing Middle Housing

The staff memo accompanying this ordinance states that cottage courts are “a ‘missing middle’ housing type intended to provide another option for small-scale residential development or infill development.”^[6] But the ordinance as drafted doesn’t create missing middle housing. It creates low-density housing with a different name.

Parolek defines missing middle housing as building types that “typically range in density from 16 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) to up to 35 du/acre, depending on the building type and lot size.”^[7] Wikipedia, citing multiple planning sources, confirms this range of 16 to 35 units per acre.^[8]

Madison’s ordinance allows a maximum of eight dwelling units on a lot up to one acre in size.^[9] On a one-acre lot, that yields eight units per acre—exactly half the minimum threshold for missing middle housing. On a half-acre lot at maximum density, the ordinance produces 16 units per acre—the bare minimum of the missing middle range. On a quarter-acre lot, 32 units per acre. The ordinance establishes no minimum density, so a developer could build three cottages on an acre and call it a cottage court.

Anything larger than eight units requires approval through the planned development process, adding cost and complexity that defeats the ordinance’s stated purpose of providing “an easier path for cottage courts to be created.”^[10]

The City of Madison’s own Comprehensive Plan classifies 15 or fewer dwelling units per acre as “low-density residential.”^[11] By the city’s own definitions, an eight-unit cottage court on a one-acre lot—or even on a half-acre lot—is low-density housing.

Staff and sponsors cannot claim to be advancing missing middle housing while proposing an ordinance that fails to meet the definition.

The 400-Square-Foot Courtyard Problem

The shared courtyard is what distinguishes a cottage court from a conventional subdivision. It’s not just an amenity—it’s the defining characteristic of the housing type. Parolek emphasizes that “the emphasis on landscaping can’t be overstated; it’s actually the most critical element of the entire cottage court concept.”^[12] The courtyard serves as the development’s focal point where residents interact and build community, with cottages oriented to face this shared space rather than the street.

Parolek’s firm, Opticos Design, describes the courtyard as essential to creating “a strong sense of place” that distinguishes cottage courts from conventional subdivisions.^[13] The courtyard must be large enough to function as genuine common space—a place where neighbors actually gather, where children can play, where community happens. A courtyard that’s too small defeats the entire purpose of the housing type.

Madison’s ordinance requires a courtyard of just 400 square feet total—a 20-foot by 20-foot square—regardless of whether the development contains three units or eight.^[14] This is a bowling alley, not a community space.

I have reviewed cottage court ordinances from dozens of municipalities across the country. I cannot find another community that uses Madison’s approach of a fixed courtyard size regardless of unit count. Every other ordinance I reviewed either scales the shared courtyard based on the number of homes, or requires the courtyard to be at least a fixed percentage of the lot.

Kirkland, Washington requires 300 square feet of common open space per unit.^[15] A HUD case study of Kirkland’s program notes that the city “requires that cottages have at least 400 square feet of open space reserved per unit.”^[16] Washoe County, Nevada requires 200 square feet per cottage.^[17] Redmond, Washington requires 300 square feet per unit of private open space adjacent to each dwelling, plus common open space that “provide[s] a centrally located focal area for the cottage housing development.”^[18]

Under Madison’s ordinance, an eight-unit development gets the same courtyard as a three-unit development. And because the ordinance allows the courtyard to be “used for shared pedestrian access,” sidewalks and walkways count toward that 400 square feet, further reducing usable green space.^[19] The modest amount of space required for properly scaled courtyards has not been a cost barrier to cottage court development in other communities.

Parking: Too Much, Wrong Design, No Standards

Parolek is unequivocal about parking: “Off-street parking does not drive the site plan. The other non-starter for Missing Middle housing is trying to provide too much parking on site.”^[20] He recommends “no more than one off-street parking space per unit” as a starting point, explaining that excessive parking requirements make projects financially unviable and shift neighborhoods below the density threshold needed for walkable communities.^[21]

Madison’s ordinance allows up to two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and one and a half spaces per unit in the Transit Oriented Development overlay district.^[22] This is double what experts recommend. The Knoxville-Knox County Planning Commission’s missing middle housing study recommends that “for MMH developments within 1,000 feet of a walkable center, cap the required parking at 1 space per unit.”^[23] Madison’s ordinance should establish a maximum of one parking space per unit with no minimum required.

But the parking problems run deeper. The ordinance text states that “if automobile parking is provided, there shall be a single shared driveway and a single shared area for a parking structure or surface parking lot, detached garages, or carports.”^[24] Section 28.211 of Madison’s zoning code defines Parking Structure as: “A multi-level parking area, wherein one or more levels are supported above the lowest level, and is commonly called a parking garage or parking ramp.”^[25]

In other words, the ordinance permits multi-story parking ramps by right in residential neighborhoods. The staff memo makes no mention of this, stating only that “parking areas may include surface parking, detached shared garages and carports.”^[26] Why does the ordinance text permit parking structures that the staff memo fails to disclose?

An eight-unit development at maximum parking allowance could construct a 16-car surface parking lot—or a multi-story parking structure—by right in any residential zoning district where cottage courts are permitted. The ordinance provides no screening requirements, no landscaping standards, and no dimensional limitations for these parking facilities.

Best practices call for breaking parking into clusters to minimize visual impact. The M-Group’s cottage housing development guide recommends considering “whether parking should be distributed among small clusters on the site to minimize visual impact” and establishing “maximum contiguous spaces in each cluster and minimum separation between clusters.”^[27] Madison’s ordinance has no such provisions.

The Landscaping and Screening Exemption

Under Madison’s zoning code, the landscaping and screening requirements of MGO 28.142 do not apply to “detached single-family and two-family dwellings and their accessory structures.”^[28] Because cottage courts consist of single-family detached dwellings, they inherit this exemption.

This exemption makes sense for a traditional single-family home with a two-car garage. It does not make sense for a cottage court development with a 16-car surface parking lot or a multi-story parking structure.

Picture this: You live in a single-family home. Your neighbor sells to a developer who builds an eight-unit cottage court with maximum parking. You now look out your kitchen window at a 16-car parking lot with no landscaping, no fence, no buffer. The ordinance permits this.

The ordinance also places no limit on the number of cottage courts that can be developed on a single city block. Combined with the zero minimum parking requirement, this creates potential for serious unintended consequences. If multiple cottage courts are developed on a block and developers provide no on-site parking—as the ordinance allows—where do residents park? On the street. Multiply this across several developments and neighborhood street parking could become overwhelmed.

Cottage court developments represent a distinctly different form than single-family and two-family dwellings. Given the increased density and potential for 16-vehicle parking lots, the ordinance should require that cottage court developments must comply with MGO 28.141 (Parking and Loading Standards) and MGO 28.142 (Landscaping and Screening Requirements), notwithstanding the general exemption for single-family and two-family dwellings.

The Attached Garage Ban Will Kill Market Acceptance

The ordinance prohibits attached garages for individual dwellings.^[29] I have reviewed cottage court ordinances from dozens of municipalities across the country. I am not aware of any other community with a climate similar to Madison’s that bans attached garages.

This prohibition will undermine market acceptance for the demographic most likely to purchase cottage court homes: downsizing seniors and empty nesters. In Wisconsin winters, requiring residents to walk outdoors from a detached parking area to their home eliminates a feature that buyers in this climate expect and value.

The climate data underscores this concern. Madison’s winters are dramatically harsher than the Pacific Northwest communities where most cottage court ordinances originated.^[30] The following table shows normal daily minimum temperatures from the National Centers for Environmental Information.

Table 1—Normal Daily Minimum Temperature, °F

	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar
Madison, WI	28.7	18.2	11.8	14.9	25.1
Portland, OR	40.6	36.2	36.2	36.8	39.7
Seattle, WA	40.9	37.1	37.7	37.7	39.9
Burlington, VT	32.1	21.3	12.9	14.3	23.6

 In the Pacific Northwest, normal daily minimum temperatures never drop below freezing. In Madison, residents face three to four months of sub-freezing overnight lows, with January averaging nearly 12°F. Asking seniors to navigate icy walkways from a detached garage to their front door in these conditions is not just inconvenient—it’s a safety hazard.

The ordinance compounds this problem by prohibiting carriage houses—dwelling units over garages. Carriage houses are a standard feature in cottage court development that allows more efficient land use, adds housing units, and reduces per-unit costs by sharing a foundation and roof with parking. Madison’s ordinance misses this opportunity entirely.

Missing Basic Design Standards

The ordinance omits several design features that experts consider essential to successful cottage court development and that help protect the character of established neighborhoods.

No front porch requirement. Ross Chapin, the architect who literally wrote the book on pocket neighborhoods, identifies the front porch as “perhaps the key element in fostering neighborly connections.”^[31]Front porches oriented toward the courtyard encourage residents to spend time outside, interact with neighbors, and build community. Madison’s ordinance doesn’t require them.

No courtyard visibility from the street. Opticos Design, the firm that coined the term “missing middle housing,” describes the traditional bungalow court design as “small, detached structures arranged to define a shared court that is typically perpendicular to the street.”^[32] The courtyard opens to the street, creating a welcoming pedestrian connection between the development and the public realm. Madison’s ordinance has no such requirement—courtyards can be completely hidden from public view. This may have been intentional to accommodate flag lots, but when a cottage court abuts a street, the courtyard should be visible and accessible from the sidewalk.

No common amenity building. The BSA Place Creation design guide emphasizes that “it is important to include a common building for use by all residents” and that “a common building fully equipped with a kitchenette, areas for exercise classes, and a common tool/gardening shed can increase the livability and marketability of these neighborhoods.”^[33] Common buildings also enable cohousing—intentional communities where residents share meals, activities, and responsibilities. Wikipedia notes that pocket neighborhoods “often adopt a model of cooperative ownership and shared community responsibilities similar to cohousing communities.”^[34] Madison’s ordinance doesn’t permit a common amenity building, foreclosing the cohousing model entirely.

No private outdoor space requirement. The ordinance establishes no minimum private outdoor space for individual dwelling units. Eliminating private yards reduces land consumption per unit and allows more housing on a given lot. But some households want private outdoor space for gardening, pets, or children’s play. A minimum private outdoor space requirement—even a small one, like a 100-square-foot patio—would address this, though it would reduce density. The ordinance should at least acknowledge this tradeoff and make an intentional choice rather than ignoring the issue.

The Ochowicz Amendment Makes Sense

Alder Ochowicz proposed an amendment to establish an eight-foot rear setback for cottage courts rather than requiring them to meet the rear setback of the underlying zoning district, which ranges from 20 to 30 feet depending on the district.^[35]

Staff opposes this amendment, arguing it would “reintroduce setback inconsistency within a zoning district by creating a carveout for a single use.”^[36] But this argument is circular. The entire point of creating a cottage court use is that it’s a different form than single-family housing. If cottage courts were meant to follow all single-family standards, there would be no need for a new use category.

Staff wants more density and missing middle housing but opposes provisions that would enable it. The reduced setback would provide a larger building envelope, allowing more homes to be built. This is precisely what an ordinance promoting housing production should do.

The Plan Commission voted to recommend approval including this amendment. Still, the Council should understand that staff’s arguments against it reflect the same internally inconsistent thinking that pervades the entire ordinance.

Park Impact Fees Undermine Affordability

Park impact fees for cottage court homes are calculated the same as single-family homes, regardless of unit size.^[37] For homes under 1,000 square feet—the typical cottage court size—this adds approximately $2,300 per unit compared to ADU rates.

This makes no sense. An 800-square-foot cottage generates less park demand than a 3,000-square-foot single-family home. The city already recognizes this principle for ADUs, which pay reduced impact fees reflecting their smaller size. Cottage court homes should receive the same treatment.

This isn’t a minor issue. On an eight-unit development, the difference adds nearly $20,000 to project costs—money that ultimately gets passed on to buyers or renters. If the goal is affordable housing, the ordinance should align impact fees with unit size.

The Planned Development Barrier

Cottage court projects exceeding eight units require quasi-judicial planned development approval rather than proceeding by right. This contradicts the ordinance’s stated goal of providing “an easier path for cottage courts to be created.”

The planned development process adds months to project timelines, requires discretionary approval by the Plan Commission, and introduces uncertainty that chills investment. Developers must hire additional consultants, attend multiple public hearings, and navigate a process where approval is not guaranteed.

This matters because larger projects are often more financially viable. A twelve-unit cottage court on a one-acre lot yields 12 units per acre—closer to true missing middle density. But under this ordinance, that project requires the same approval process as a major commercial development.

If Madison wants cottage courts built, the ordinance should allow larger by-right developments—perhaps 12 or 16 units before triggering planned development review. The eight-unit threshold is arbitrary and counterproductive.

The Martinez-Rutherford Amendment Doesn’t Go Far Enough

The Plan Commission also approved an amendment by Alder Martinez-Rutherford to allow two-family dwellings (twins and two-units) within cottage courts, so long as total dwelling units don’t exceed eight.^[38]Staff supports this amendment, and so do I—but it doesn’t go far enough.

Standard practice in cottage court development allows three- and four-unit buildings set to the rear of the development. This adds density and housing units, makes projects more financially viable, and produces more affordable homes. Madison’s ordinance should follow this practice rather than limiting structures to two units.

The Process Problem

The American Institute of Certified Planners Code of Ethics requires planners to “facilitate the exchange of ideas and ensure that people have the opportunity for meaningful, timely, and informed participation in the development of plans and programs that may affect them.”^[39]

The process used to develop this ordinance falls short of that standard.

The legislation was drafted by staff without public input, introduced on October 28 with sufficient co-sponsors to guarantee passage, and scheduled for rapid approval—from introduction to Council vote in just six weeks.^[40] The Plan Commission held a single public hearing on December 1 before voting to recommend approval.^[41] Public comments were limited to three minutes.

No proactive outreach was conducted to gather input from key stakeholders. The Madison Area Builders Association and the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin—organizations representing the builders and real estate professionals who would actually construct and sell these homes—were not engaged before the ordinance was introduced.

When I asked Planning Director Meagan Tuttle about the comparative analysis underlying the ordinance, she confirmed that staff reviewed ordinances from municipalities in the Pacific Northwest and Wisconsin but does not maintain “a full list of every one we looked at.”^[42] The staff memo references only Portland, Oregon; Burlington, Vermont; and Stoughton, Wisconsin.^[43] This falls far short of the comprehensive analysis that a new housing type deserves.

By contrast, the National Association of Home Builders’ 2019 report on cottage courts and missing middle housing analyzes ordinances from Ashland, Oregon; Raleigh, North Carolina; and numerous other jurisdictions, documenting specific provisions, built results, and implementation challenges.^[44] Madison’s staff could have produced a similarly thorough analysis. They didn’t.

The Urban Design Commission Was Not Consulted

Madison has an Urban Design Commission whose statutory purpose is to “assure the highest quality of design for all public and private projects in the City.”^[45] The UDC includes three registered architects, a graduate landscape architect, and two design professionals—exactly the expertise needed to evaluate design standards for a new residential building type.

The UDC already reviews “the exterior design and appearance of all principal buildings or structures and the landscape plans of all proposed residential building complexes.” It is also charged with recommending “ordinance changes to the City Plan Commission and Common Council which will promote a visually and functionally improved City.”

The cottage court ordinance was not referred to the Urban Design Commission.

This matters because the ordinance’s deficiencies are primarily design deficiencies: courtyard size that doesn’t scale with unit count, no requirement for front porches facing the courtyard, no requirement for courtyard visibility from the street, no parking screening or clustering requirements, no design compatibility standards when existing structures are incorporated. These are architectural and site planning issues—precisely what the UDC exists to address.

Had the ordinance been referred to the UDC, a commission of architects and design professionals might have identified these gaps before the ordinance reached the Council floor.

The ADU Cautionary Tale

Madison has been down this road before. The city adopted an accessory dwelling unit ordinance in 2013 to create more housing options.^[46] It didn’t work. Market uptake was so poor that the city has revised the ordinance multiple times—shortening the approval process in 2021, eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement in 2024, and expanding where ADUs can be built.^[47]

As of early 2022, only about two dozen ADUs had been approved citywide, and half of those had actually been built.^[48] The city approved just 11 ADUs in 2023 and nine more through mid-September 2024.

The cottage court ordinance follows the same playbook: drafted by staff without stakeholder input, rushed through the approval process, and designed around what planners think the market should want rather than what builders and buyers actually need.

Why the rush? What is staff afraid will happen if they take time to engage stakeholders meaningfully, prepare a comprehensive comparative analysis, and develop an ordinance informed by best practices and market realities?

What Should Happen Tonight

The Common Council should refer this ordinance back to the Plan Commission with direction to:

• Conduct meaningful stakeholder engagement with the Madison Area Builders Association, the Realtors Association of South Central Wisconsin, and other groups that can provide insight into market viability.
  

• Prepare a comprehensive comparative analysis of cottage court ordinances from municipalities that have successfully implemented this housing type, documenting specific provisions and built results.
  

• Develop to-scale drawings showing realistic development scenarios, including relationships to adjacent properties.
  

• Revise the ordinance to align with missing middle housing best practices, including: courtyard requirements that scale with unit count; parking limited to one space per unit with screening and clustering requirements; allowance for attached garages and carriage houses; front porch requirements; courtyard visibility from the street; consideration of common amenity buildings; limits on cottage courts per block; and park impact fees proportional to unit size.
  

• Consider raising the by-right threshold above eight units to enable financially viable projects without requiring planned development approval.

I support cottage courts. Madison needs this housing type. But rushing to approve a flawed ordinance will produce another ADU-style failure—legislation that sits on the books while failing to address our housing challenges.

Taking more time for stakeholder engagement will produce an ordinance that actually gets built.

What You Can Do

If you share these concerns:

• Contact your alder and the Common Council before tonight’s meeting. Find your alder and their email at this link. 
  

• ]Write to the Council at allalders@cityofmadison.com.
  

• Register your position on Legistar (the item is number 16 on the December 9 agenda, Legistar ID 90557) using this link.. 
  

• Register to speak at the meeting using this link.
  

• Share this information with your neighbors and on social media.
  

• The Council needs to hear that residents want cottage court housing done right, not cottage court housing done fast.

77SquareMiles.com covers what mainstream media won’t—because democracy dies in darkness, especially at City Hall.

© Alex Saloutos 2025.

Notes

^[1]City of Madison, Legistar File No. 90557, “An Ordinance Amending Sections within Chapters 16 and 28 of the Madison General Ordinances to create 'Cottage Courts,'“ https://madison.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7710959&GUID=610F1376-632A-4BBD-90BA-7FB62B6837FD

^[2]Keene Sentinel, “Cottage courts? Keene eyes another arrow for the quiver to address housing needs,” February 11, 2024.

^[3]Cottage Court Neighborhood, “Concepts,” http://cottagecourts.com/concepts.html

^[4]Wikipedia, “Missing middle housing,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing

^[5]Email correspondence with Planning Director Meagan Tuttle, November 2025.

^[6]City of Madison Planning Division Staff Report, Legistar File ID #90557 (Cottage Courts), December 1, 2025, p. 1.

^[7]Daniel Parolek, “Missing Middle Housing,” 2014 presentation to NAHB, https://www.nahbclassic.org/assets/docs/ises/DanParolek_MissingMiddleHousingfinal_20140127095017.pdf

^[8]Wikipedia, “Missing middle housing.”

^[9]Legistar File No. 90557, Body Version 2, Section 28.151(a)(1) and (b)(1).

^[10]City of Madison Planning Division Staff Report, December 1, 2025, p. 2.

^[11]City of Madison Comprehensive Plan, Part I, p. 20, Table: “Planned Land Use Categories.”

^[12]Cottage Court Neighborhood, “Concepts,” http://cottagecourts.com/concepts.html

^[13]Congress for the New Urbanism, “What’s right for the site: Analyzing the missing middle,” October 9, 2017, https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/10/09/whats-right-site-analyzing-missing-middle

^[14]Legistar File No. 90557, Body Version 2, Section 28.151(d)(3).

^[15]Kirkland Zoning Code Chapter 113, Section 113.35, https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Kirkland/html/KirklandZ113/KirklandZ113.html

^[16]HUD User, “Kirkland, Washington: Cottage Housing Ordinance,” https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_102011_2.html

^[17]Washoe County, “Cottage Court Quick Info,” https://washoecounty.gov/csd/planning_and_development/housing/cottage_courts.php

^[18]Redmond Community Development Guide, Section 20C.30.52, https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Redmond/CDG/RCDG20C/RCDG20C3052.html

^[19]Legistar File No. 90557, Body Version 2, Section 28.151(d)(3).

^[20]Opticos Design, “Missing Middle Housing Scan,” prepared for Knoxville-Knox County Planning, https://archive.knoxplanning.org/plans/missing_middle_housing_scan.pdf

^[21]Daniel Parolek, Missing Middle Housing: Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today’s Housing Crisis (Island Press, 2020).

^[22]Legistar File No. 90557, Body Version 2, Table 28I-3.

^[23]Knoxville-Knox County Planning, “Missing Middle Housing Scan,” https://archive.knoxplanning.org/plans/missing_middle_housing_scan.pdf

^[24]Legistar File No. 90557, Body Version 2, Section 28.151(e)(1).

^[25]Madison General Ordinances, Section 28.211, Definitions.

^[26]City of Madison Planning Division Staff Report, December 1, 2025, p. 1.

^[27]M-Group, “Cottage Housing Developments,” March 7, 2017, https://www.m-group.us/m-lab/blog/2017/3/7/cottage-housing-developments

^[28]Madison General Ordinances, Section 28.142(2)(a).

^[29]Legistar File No. 90557, Body Version 2, Section 28.151(e)(1).

^[30]National Centers for Environmental Information, “Normal Daily Minimum Temperature,” https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/nrmmin.txt

^[31]Ross Chapin, “Pocket Neighborhoods: Building Blocks for Resilient Communities,” Planetizen, May 14, 2015, https://www.planetizen.com/node/56611

^[32]Opticos Design, “Missing Middle Housing Close Up: Bungalow Courts,” November 15, 2017, https://opticosdesign.com/blog/missing-middle-housing-close-bungalow-courts/

^[33]BSA Place Creation, “Pocket Neighborhoods: An Idea Whose Time Has Come Full Circle,” March 5, 2020, https://www.placecreation.com/email-campaign-articles/pocket-neighborhoods

^[34]Wikipedia, “Pocket neighborhood,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_neighborhood

^[35]Legistar File No. 90557, Ochowicz Proposal.

^[36]City of Madison Planning Division Staff Report, December 1, 2025, p. 2.

^[37]City of Madison Park Impact Fee Schedule; comparison to ADU rates.

^[38]Legistar File No. 90557, Martinez-Rutherford Proposal.

^[39]AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, Section A.2, https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode/

^[40]Legistar File No. 90557 (introduced October 28, 2025; Council vote December 9, 2025).

^[41]Plan Commission agenda, December 1, 2025.

^[42]Email correspondence with Planning Director Meagan Tuttle, November 2025.

^[43]City of Madison Planning Division Staff Report, December 1, 2025.

^[44]National Association of Home Builders, Diversifying Housing Options With Small Lots and Smaller Homes, 2019.

^[45] Madison General Ordinances, Section 33.24, Urban Design Commission. https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORMAWIVOIICH32--33_CH33AM_33.24URDECO

^[46]City of Madison ADU information, https://www.cityofmadison.com/council/district6/blog/?id=26363

^[47]Capital Times, “Madison loosens zoning on accessory dwelling units, or 'granny flats,'“ April 22, 2024, https://captimes.com/news/government/madison-loosens-zoning-on-accessory-dwelling-units-or-granny-flats/article_c21a0918-fe81-11ee-91dd-8fe2b8938218.html

^[48]Madison.com, “Madison wants to make it easier for you to build housing in your backyard,” January 14, 2025, https://madison.com/news/local/business/development/article_64f53126-d1fe-11ef-be7f-7b658c4e50ea.html