Plan Commission tables riverfront rezoning after hours of public comment

Madison Plan Commission members voted to table Resolution 2025-PC-1, a City of Madison proposal to create a Riverfront District (RF) by amending the zoning ordinance, official zoning map and schedule of uses, after more than two hours of public comment and questions from commissioners.

The proposed amendment would establish a new, targeted Riverfront District covering a small portion of downtown along Vaughn Drive and Jefferson Street and change current designations (open space, central business district and historic district residential) for the parcels in that teal overlay. City leaders said the district is intended to enable infill housing and complementary uses while guiding design in the riverfront area. Mayor (name not provided), who presented the concept to the commission, said the change is part of a broader rewrite of the city's zoning ordinance and a push to add housing. "This is not a high rise...It's 3 to 4 stories tall, and it's not for rich people," the Mayor said, adding the administration had proposed lowering the maximum height from 45 feet to 35 feet measured from flood-protection grade.

Why it matters: the rezoning would change how currently vacant or park-zoned parcels can be used, permit types of infill development subject to a new schedule of uses, and affect views, flood resilience and parking in a sensitive downtown area that multiple speakers called a tourism and historic asset. The proposal also intersects with planned infrastructure spending: city staff said City Council approved up to $1.5 million to the redevelopment commission for infrastructure support tied to the project, and city officials described outside grants and regional investments under discussion.

What city staff and consultants said: Amy Williams, zoning consultant with Taylor Sequo Williams Design Group, framed the Riverfront District as a targeted piece of a larger unified development ordinance update. She said the draft district would clarify front and rear setbacks, set a height measured from flood-protection grade, and allow some current nonconforming properties to become conforming so they can be repaired. Planning staff member Nicole (last name not provided) told the commission the riverfront district "is located downtown in the historic district, so it will require historic board of review for all infill as well as any potential demolition on future sites." She also noted the base flood elevation varies parcel to parcel and that the proposed height caps were intended to start above the flood protection grade.

Key technical and policy points discussed: - Height and measurement: the administration proposed reducing the maximum height from 45 feet (previously aligned with downtown) to 35 feet above flood-protection grade; staff emphasized the measurement begins at the required flood-protection grade, not ground elevation, so the effective height above grade varies by parcel. Staff cited typical base flood elevations in the district of about 8–13 feet depending on location. - Floodplain and permitting: officials said the parcels in the proposed district are in the flood fringe (buildable with proper permitting) and that DNR/floodplain rules and the city's floodplain administrator would govern construction. Staff said Corps of Engineers review is not required for sites in the flood fringe (the waterway’s floodway would be the Corps’ jurisdiction). - Historic oversight: new construction in the district would be subject to review by the Madison Historic District Board of Review under the city's historic guidelines; several staff speakers said the intent is to direct compatible infill rather than remove historic protections. - Parking and traffic: current code requires two off-street spaces per multifamily unit; city staff said the proposed unified development ordinance will recommend reducing that to one per unit (a change not yet adopted). Developers described plans for on-site parking under buildings and for sidewalk, boulevard and other off-site infrastructure improvements; commissioners and residents raised concerns about existing parking capacity and whether the nearby Jefferson Street lot and street parking provide adequate weekend and event parking. - Infrastructure funding: staff said the City Council had approved up to $1.5 million to the redevelopment commission to support infrastructure (sidewalks, boulevard work, stormwater, park improvements) around any future project; city officials also referenced regional grants and investments being pursued but characterized financing as still in early stages.

Public comments and concerns: dozens of residents spoke. Common themes were protecting open park-like riverfront views and tourism, flooding and public-safety risks for riverfront housing, parking, and the desire for fuller community engagement. Jarrett Boyd (resident) said, "53 units down there on the river are not going to solve that problem," and others warned of a potential domino effect of additional rezoning if this district is adopted. Alan Long (resident and downtown property owner) said the proposal "will destroy the view of the riverfront." Several speakers asked for a larger, better-publicized public meeting (a gym or similar venue) and for more time to review revised schedule-of-uses materials that staff acknowledged had been corrected since initial posting.

Commission action and next steps: commissioners moved and seconded a motion to table Resolution 2025-PC-1. The motion passed by voice vote; the commission did not adopt the rezoning ordinance at the meeting. Commissioners and staff indicated they will schedule additional public engagement, distribute corrected materials (including an updated schedule of uses), and return the matter to the commission and then to City Council with a staff recommendation. Any final zoning change would then proceed through City Council readings as required by law.

Discussion vs. decision: the meeting record shows substantial public discussion and requests for additional detail (housing unit counts, parking plans, specific schedule-of-uses language, flood elevations, and financial commitments). The formal decision taken at the meeting was procedural: to table the rezoning request for further review and public input rather than approve or deny it.