Madison Planning Commission recommends Riverfront District rezoning; vote follows hours of public comment

The Madison Planning Commission voted to recommend Resolution 2025‑PC‑1, an amendment to the City of Madison zoning ordinance, map and schedule of district regulations to establish a Riverfront District, after a public meeting that included more than two hours of testimony from residents and officials.

The commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Madison Common Council for final action. The roll-call vote on the planning commission was: Joel Storm — yes; Jerry Ralston — yes; Rick Ferris — no; Josh Wilbur — yes; Carl Eaglin — yes; Mike Armstrong — no; Zach Laughlin — yes; Patrick (last name transcribed variably) — no; Van Crafton — yes. The resolution passed and will be considered by the city council.

The resolution, identified in the meeting as Resolution 2025‑PC‑1, asks the planning commission to recommend amendments to the City of Madison zoning ordinance, official zoning map and schedule of district regulations to establish a new Riverfront District intended to allow development on sections of the downtown riverfront. City staff told the commission the current proposal reduces the area under consideration and lowers a previously discussed maximum building height from 45 feet to 35 feet; staff also said the list of uses allowed by right or condition had been reduced to 28 (details in the record).

Public comment was lengthy and sharply divided. Opponents focused on preserving downtown open space, flood risk, parking and tourism impacts and raised procedural objections to how the proposal was presented. Elizabeth Chapa, a resident who said she lives on East Street inside the area under consideration, told the commission, “I just don't think the riverfront is set up to accommodate this, especially in the location that is the gateway into Madison.” Many other speakers expressed similar concerns about vehicle congestion, loss of publicly used riverfront space and the potential for spot zoning.

Supporters and several speakers who identified themselves as long‑time Madison residents argued the proposal responds to a need for housing and could spur reinvestment in the downtown. Champ Claus, who said he resides at 722 West Third Street, said the project is “for my grandkids. This is for my great grandkids,” and argued new residents would spend locally and support businesses. City officials, including Mayor Courtney, told the commission the proposal is not final in design and said the historic district review board and additional public processes would review architecture and site details; the mayor said, in the meeting, “We desperately need housing.”

Several commenters raised legal and procedural objections. Some speakers said the application was initially submitted as an application and later described as a resolution, and argued that notices and the method chosen for initiating the change may not meet the planning commission's ordinances; one speaker said the city owns a minority of lots in the area and questioned whether the city could pursue rezoning on that basis. Petitions presented at the meeting included one with 1,594 signatures and another with 321 signatures opposing the rezoning; speakers also said the city had provided additional documents to the commission late in the day.

Technical and design issues raised during testimony included concerns about floodplain design and the height measurement method tied to flood‑protection grades, the lack of specific lighting and parking standards in the proposed new district language, and the effect on adjacent property owners' views. Several speakers suggested alternatives, including directing development to other city parcels (one speaker cited the former EMS site), encouraging reinvestment in upper‑floor Main Street housing, or creating a broader riverfront plan rather than a narrow district tailored to one project.

After public comment and limited board discussion, a motion to approve the resolution was called and the commission proceeded to a roll‑call vote. The planning commission attachment and hearing record include the proposed ordinance language and exhibits referenced in the resolution; the commission's action is a recommendation to city council, not a final zoning change.

Next steps: the planning commission's recommended resolution will be transmitted to the Madison Common Council for consideration. The council will schedule its own hearings and votes; the date for council consideration was not specified during the meeting.