Common Council - Regular Meeting

Tuesday, March the 3rd. Welcome to the city council meeting. We are streaming the meeting live on YouTube channel. We are also archiving the meeting there for viewing. As with all of our city council meetings, uh we will begin and invite you to stand uh for the Lord's Prayer followed by the pledge of allegiance. Then we'll get to today's meeting. Our Father, who art in heaven, be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen. I allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome to our city council meeting, Maddie. And if you would please do a roll call.

Patrick Teanol here. Carla Krebs here. Lucy Datillo here. Joshua Schaefer here. Joel Storm here. Jim Barlet absent. Josh Wilbur absent. Yeah, he may be. Oh, he will not be here tonight. All right. Well, thank you for that. Uh, council, have you had an opportunity to review the minutes from the last meeting dated February the 17th? If so, we'll entertain a motion to approve. I move we approve the minutes as presented. I will second that. Any discussion? None. All in favor, please say I. Any oppose? Thank you.

We have a busy agenda tonight. We actually have four ordinances that are on the agenda as well as a public hearing. We'll begin with uh ordinance 2026-4. turn maybe before uh Joe if I tell you what right after you read that I'd like to make some preamble remarks and then introduce Amy Williams for a presentation to council. Okay.

Yes. This is ordinance number 2026-4 an ordinance of the common council of the city of Madison Indiana repealing and replacing the zoning ordinance and subdivision control regulations by adopting the unified development ordinance and zoning maps for the city of Madison, Indiana. Thank you, council, and guests. Tonight, tonight, we begin the adoption process for the city of Madison's Unified Development Ordinance, which combines our zoning ordinance and our subdivision regulations, much of which hasn't changed since 1997. The UDO was favorably and unanimously recommended by the Plan Commission on February the 17th, 2026. Getting to this point has been a key initiative for the past 16 months. It would not have been possible without the work of the steering committee, plan commission, city council, city staff, our consultant, and administrator Amy Williams, and community input. This ordinance incorporates best practices for planning the future of our community, brings new life to disinvested areas of our city, adds much neededed clarity and organization, eliminates many non-conforming uses, removes traditional barriers to expanded housing options, and takes a document that is over 30 years old and says, "We are welcoming the future with new strategies and the policies to support them." This new ordinance and maps, uh, they are not intended to be static. Let's not wait another decade or longer to align our community's needs with its zoning policies. We can and should evaluate it each year and not be afraid to change if necessary. As with all of our council meetings, after a short presentation by Amy Williams introducing the UDO to council, we will begin the first reading of the ordinance and allow public comment. We will give any interested party the opportunity to speak for up to four minutes about the

UDO or other ordinances that are on our agenda tonight. Also, at the end of the meeting, we will allow anyone to speak on any other topic, also up to four minutes if you've signed in. I think Carla went over that uh earlier this evening. The privilege to speak is a chance to share your thoughts or concerns with the mayor's office and your city council representatives. Please keep your remarks succinct and respectful. I would uh now like to introduce our planning and zoning administrator, Amy Williams. Thank you.

All right. Thank you guys. All right. Mindy's going to pull up a presentation here for us. Um for those that were at plane commission, I'm going to run through some of the similar things, but want to make sure all of the council also gets that same background here as well. Um all right, let's see. and it works. So, really quickly, I'm just going to touch on the process. I'm also going to go through the updates that were included in the adoption draft, the 1230 2025 adoption draft. Um, I'm going to go through again some of the items included in that plane commission resolution that you guys had uh linked to on your on your document as well as there is one uh recommended council amendment that we went through that is uh it was caught when they were doing the ordinance. It's the repeal section. We want to actually not repeal just three little points within that uh within that uh building code section just to give you guys stronger uh basis for enforcement of your building codes as well. So I'll go through that specifically as well. So just a quick refresher. I know that uh either a lot of you all have either attended plan commission meetings and or the training session that we did last November. Um, but we had a committee that did go through and vetted this page by page, chapter by chapter, and made sure that uh we had a lot of good discussions, a lot of in-depth discussions that led us to this point. Um, all of those were uh meetings were open to the public uh if folks did want to attend. We did also start with a online draft, a public review draft in November. We had a local officials training, a public open house, and that then resulted in the adoption draft dated 12:30 2025. We had a plane commission hearing then on the 17th as well after we finish uh you know all of this and eventually if this is adopted um the process doesn't stop here. And so that's that's the big the big message too to you guys that once this is adopted or at some point it is adopted that that's not the end of this. This should be a living

document as the mayor referenced. We will we're planning on doing a six-month assessment which we always recommend after any sort of large overhaul like this where we can look at tweaks, right? not big overhauls or changes. But then annually, you also need to be doing assessments because state statute changes every year. There are things that impact the local ordinances every year. There's a number of them either finishing up or still kind of at the tail end uh right now to the current session. So again, that that six-month assessment is something that we definitely want to uh make sure happens. And then every 12 months every year, you guys should have an assessment. If you don't see one, feel free to ask. say, "Hey, why aren't we doing an assessment this year?" Um, and really again, the purpose of that is to keep it relevant. As the mayor said, your ordinance is very dated at the moment. It's not current in a lot of aspects with state statute. And there's a lot of things that probably don't reflect the direction of the city and making sure that um the city is able to attract that quality development that you guys want, but also housing development and making sure that some of those barriers are not there, but we still have kind of the right parameters in place for that when it does come. Oh, and it's going to pin for a minute.

On that reassessment? Yes. So, we're going to plan on doing a six-month assessment and then a 12-month after that annually. Yes. Every year. What uh I guess where do you how do you typically see that play out with other local? Do you are you do we work with a consulting firm like yours and the droning board? The

It's uh it can really It's flexible. I mean, you could do that. you could work with a a consultant if it's that's if staff don't have time for that. Um but a lot of times a lot of times that's done by staff. It's kind of knowing what came through that last legislative session. I always say wait till the second half of the year to do those because laws go into effect July 1st so that we can kind of see how things play out. We can get a feel for it. Um that second half of the year we want to go ahead and do it at some point to make sure really we're any state statutes that change. But that's a time to grab in anything else like, "Oh, this wasn't quite working as well as we thought." Um, or we need to adjust or or shift here or there. Um, so staff should be able to do that, but you can also engage, yeah, outside help if needed as well. I'm going to run really quickly through some of the uh updates that were included between that November draft and the December draft just to make sure everybody kind of understands what was what was done this. And I ran through this with the plan commission. So, some that sat through it, sorry, but I do want to make sure that everybody understands. Um, we had that November public review draft. Again, we had meetings that happened between them, lots of great input, and that resulted in a handful of changes that I do just want to highlight. Um, or at least the major changes, the bigger ones. We had four updates within the um districts, two updates within the youth standards chapter, two within the site standards chapter, um two within the subdivisions chapter, two within the procedures, and one in the definitions is kind of a chasing the the things, you know, the the needle in the hay stack as you have to go through things. So, I'll just run through some of these really quickly. Um by all means, stop if you have questions, stop me. Um one was the impervious coverage or surface area within the A district. So it was a good comment that we had 10% uh max impervious that means paved surfaces uh rooftop any of that nature which is fine for a large probably 5 acre track or 10 acre track but you do have some a partials that are you know much smaller than that and so on a 2acre track that

might not be appropriate. So we did modify that it's 10% for five acres or or larger and then 40% for those smaller ones um just to make sure that was reasonable. The second one was also a consistent living minimum living area. So, um, within most of the districts, we had the 950 for single family, two family, and 600 for multif family. Uh, we didn't specify that in some of our other districts, uh, such as, um, I don't believe it was specified in general business or CBD prior. So, we just made that consistent across all districts. And then we did uh clarify to reinforce the existing setbacks within your R uh your RF or sorry your RA and HDR. Um 10 foot for your uh primary structures on the rear and 5 foot for the side. So we just again kind of clarified that because um it didn't quite align with your A district. So we wanted to make sure it wasn't more restrictive than AG. Um and then we did also add an exception for HDR that if we have those older historic structures we want to keep um and that if if the if the setback is not met on the side setback we can actually use the three partials on each side. So it was just a clarification that actually was discussed during that training session too. And then the permitted lane use table that was the last one within um this this chapter. So, we combined or updated some names um for playground or sorry, preschool and daycare. We combined those uh campground and campsite combined and then pain management clinic and medical offices. We just broke those out specifically. And then we did add uh restaurant and serviceoriented retail as special exceptions in RF to accommodate the existing use uses. There was a proposed amendment to that um at the plane commission level that I think helped to give a lot of comfort to everybody on limiting the the size of those structures to 1500 square feet. Um and then added indoor gun ranges permitted in local business. And then

proh prohibited chemical processing in your flood plane overlay. And then also looked at adding specific uses for data center um because that was something that was called out probably one of the more frequent comments at the public meeting is they wanted that called out specifically. that was done um and also to a better um to better assess the impacts and then also called that loft dwelling meaning live over you know uh second floor third floor uh just for clarity we had multif family there but it was a little confusing for folks so we just called them lofts um and then we corrected some of the warehousing distribution in bulk storage that actually got shifted between local and general business that was a good comment from the public so we grabbed that correction there within the third chapter we talked about um mirroring the best standards from the county largely. So that really kind of flowed through with uh li uh liability insurance, the other um environmental pollution liability insurance, prohibited locations and minimum setbacks um within that. And then the second was also looking at our commercial standards and again for solar and mirroring largely the counties on that as well. In the fourth chapter, we did uh update some of the parking size standards. parking spots were definitely on the larger side of you know of the scale of those and went from went to a 9 by8. Um we also looked at 8% of the parking area for landscaped must be landscaped um for spaces third 30 or more spaces and uh changed a minimum of one space per dwelling unit for multif family and the CBD. Uh other thing within chapter 4 was looking at structure standards. So, uh, specified that a fence can be put on the set on the lot line if you have a zero foot setback. That's to help HDR district. Um, and then also upped the maximum height of that front yard fence from 3 ft to 4T because that's really reflective a lot of your HDR fences. And then finally looked at a rear side

setback and decreased it from 10 to five if you put up a solid fence or a wall for a pool. Uh within the subdivisions, again, we allowed internal subdivision or allowed internal sidewalks to be optional if it's served by septic. So that's really your RA type of subdivisions and large lots where they aren't expecting utilities and also those would be counties to maintain. So we didn't want to force the county to maintain those. Um and then also limited the number of access points from a minor residential um subdivision, which is really your RA subdivisions to two points instead of having curb cuts all the way down the county road. Uh within our procedures, again, we updated building permit timelines um and just specified that it's you have to start within 6 months, has to be completed with within 18, and you can get an extension if you'd like. Um and then also non-residential building permits. We did remove the need for a permit for residential fences walls as well. Left it for commercial though. And then finally, we had to add four definitions because of the previous changes. So we did add those to the definitions chapter. Um so that was again I just wanted to highlight what happened between that November draft and that December draft. That was all included in the draft that was considered by the plane commission. The planning commission then did approve unanimously a uh resolution, favorable resolution to council for the adoption of the UDO, which is the 1230 2025 draft, the converted zoning map, and for amendments to that UDL. I'll run through those really quickly as well, just to make sure you guys understand fully what you're adopting and everybody here also understands that as well. Um, so again, we had that plan commission hearing. Um between that adoption draft and that February plane commission hearing, we had more time to meet with you all um meet with plane commission members, hear comments from the public and incorporate those in. So that resulted in four different amendments. The first was to clarify the

setback in your uh riverfront district. So I said clarify uh definitely very particularly because we were not changing it uh from what your current is. Currently, the um the idea of being five feet or 10 feet if it's adjacent to a single or two family dwelling on rear yards that was covered within a buffer yard standard in another chapter. Just to be very blatant and purposeful, we went ahead and put it directly into the table here. Um we updated the uses in the open space district. That was one I kind of mentioned. Um, we went ahead and removed general retail, but then we added a restriction on restaurants and serviceoriented retail within open space. They can't be more than 1500 square ft within a building, within a structure, an enclosed building. Um, that allows the few uses that are down there to continue um, and not be non-conforming, but we really didn't want to perpetuate, you know, large restaurants and and retail being developed down there. So, I think that ended up being a happy medium. and those were kind of just shown there. Um, and then the third one is to allow parkings, parking and setbacks and buffer yards. Um, but still does need to be 5t from those property lines. So some of your general business parcels are pretty small. That kind of allows those to still function. And then um also allowing that encroachment. This kind of followed through on three different pages, page 20, 108, and 119. That same idea has to kind of follow through in a couple different places. um within that. So, this is just the buffer guard section saying you can't have park parking within it.

And then oh, sorry on that one. Yeah. When you have lots like you have on Clifty Drive where there several businesses connected connected parking lots. How does that play? Yeah. So, they you're talking about when they're under different ownerships, right? Different ownership, different parts. Yeah. We do there is a section in our driveways and access within chapter 4 that does require as long as it's feasible that crossdevelopment access because we do want to encourage that right this fast food restaurant comes next to the next fast food restaurant. Uh we want to be able to go between those without having to go to Clifty. So we do have a c it's called cross development access I believe it is and it's in the chapter 4.

Does that parking in the five foot parking limitation apply in those scenarios? Um, so the five foot you would be able to have the driveway but not a parking spot. Does that make sense? [snorts] Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.

Okay. If they did want them to all run together but be separate parcels, um, that would require a variance at this point. Unless they wanted to combine those, then that could function. And the the your deal with that is because if you sold one parcel and not the other, you know, and they became under different ownerships, you don't want developments actually crossing parcel lines. [snorts] Okay. And then the last amendment was just correcting general typos um or cross references that didn't update automatically in the the actual document. Um so that was those four. So the amend the the PC resolution did include um again those four amendments and I wanted to make sure you all understood those within the certification packet. Those were you had a strike through an underlined version of all of those pages as well. [snorts] Um so there was one again proposed extremely minor thing that we realized as we were going through the the actual ordinance um when we looked at the repeal section. So this is in the first chapter um it's under 1D number six. There is this statement here for repeal and it's just stating what this ordinance should be repealing, right? It should be repealing our sub our subdivision regulations and our zoning code. Your off- premise billboards live within your building code, which is chapter 150. Um, we had said it was going to be repealing chapter 150.9 through 150.99. Um, in reality that 99 has an A, B, and C and D. D specifically refers to the signs A, B, and C are in reference to a building code. I think they probably are still covered in the ordinance in the UDO in terms of allowing us to enforce those, but the suggestion was just let's let A, B, and C live. Um, because again, it's directly related to that building code just to give extra teeth and enforcement of our building code. So that would be the only suggested

amendment is to say instead of saying through 150.99 we just say and 150.99D and and what uh Amy's referring to is the ordinance reflects what is there. Yes. But the actual um UDO has that language in it. So we're reconciling the two. Correct. Yep. And that was just kind of after it went through uh you know the the actual drafting of the ordinance and and um Joe got some good comments in there too in the mayor on actually we we probably want to leave AB and C so we have extra grounds to enforce our building code. That's all that is. So um that is a recommended amendment at the council level with that. What about 150.98?

Does it? So, it would repeal all of 150.9 the existing and I have that if you want me to pull it up too, Josh, if you want that. We just make sure we word that properly because I think 150.98 would not be included in that statement, right? But you were trying to delete it still. 159 is not in that statement, correct? Sorry, I thought you said a. Sorry. I thought you said 15.98. 98. You are correct, Josh. We want to delete that or leave that. Uh, we wanted to leave that is what the ordinance reads. Okay. Correct, mayor. Yes. Yeah.

And I can pull that up real quickly. Section in our building codes talks about violations of the building codes. That is 150.98.

Right. Again, our ordinance does also talk about violations of the building code and any violation of the building code is a violation of the UDO. So, in essence, we've got like a circle a circle around way of enforcing that, which is fine, but it was just this gives you extra teeth to directly enforce it as well. And if you want, Josh, I have that ordinance right here, the 150. Um, and what we can do too is I can send that ordinance out in particular. Trying to see existing ordinance current regulations ordinances. Um, if you'd like, I can send the 150 out just so that you can directly see that one as well.

Yeah. And I'm looking at it online right now. But as long as we make sure we word that amendment properly as all make sure we remove what we want to remove and not and keep what we want to keep and don't accidentally leave or delete something. So 150 um 98 we want to leave and we want to leave 150.99 A B and C correct and 150.90 and as well right? Yes Josh. Okay so the wording

so 150.90 is offremise advertising signs and billboards. We do want to get rid of that because our UDO absolutely covers that. Um 150.98 is the violation section. Again, giving us extra teeth. It's not going to hurt to leave it. And then 150.99A B and C again are referring to our building code um penalties. So again, it's just going to give us extra teeth. 150.99D covers penalties related to the billboards.

Yeah, it's a good clarification, Josh. That's a minor technicality. doesn't quite influence or impact um a lot within the actual ordinance. All right. Um so if you guys have any questions regarding the ordinance, I'm more than happy to talk through any of those. Um yeah, you mentioned that we'd revise it every six months and then 12 months following that. What would the process look like timewise if there was a revision that needed to be made?

Yeah. Um, so right now I think that again if you look at kind of maybe either late summer to early fall time frame, um, you know, August or September or something, um, would be a good time. Month or two prior to that, what I would typically say is, okay, plane commission meeting, hey, we're going to start to look at any amendments. If you've got thoughts or ideas, give them to us, let us know. We'll compile all of those. Um, council, same thing. Uh, and then we would have a public hearing on that. Usually I like to do something informal at plane commission and just have discussions of it again just so that it starts the dialogue. Um and then prior to that public hearing we can get all of that out so everybody can actually review it and see it thoughts, ideas. Um if the public has thoughts and ideas we can also entertain those. Um and then it goes through the same process. So it goes to plan commission for a public hearing comes to council and it's adopted by ordinance then. Um, so it's the same process, but again, the idea is it's um we're not we're not rewriting the whole thing at that point, right? We might be just doing small tweaks of, okay, this one didn't quite work, right? Or we want to tweak this uh definition or or something of that nature. Um, or state statute, that point, too. Um, you'll be able to incorporate everything that's going through the 2026 legislative session at the state. And all of those items could be incorporated, too, if they don't already comply. Thank you.

And just to clarify, attachment C from at the link is the final clean copy with all of the amendments or not? No. Um that is the adoption the 1230 2025 adoption draft and the four proposed amendments follow that with strike through an underline. Okay. Yeah. So is there a clean version that exists yet? Um I can send I can send that out if that's what you guys would like. whatever. We'll make sure that's attached to the link. There is a clean version on the website. She's got a red line version for so that there's, you know, there's no confusion over what's being adopted and then we'll have a clean adoption version. Yep. That's no problem. Josh,

I guess that would include our proposed amendment, the repeal. Yeah. Should we go ahead and take care of that tonight? It's embedded. It's Yeah, it's actually in the ordinance language. Oh, but I want to make sure the UDO reflects the ordinance language is all we're trying to do there. Okay. So, there is no amendment. The council needs to pass separately. Correct. Okay. That that works for me. Whatever Joe says on that one, that works. She was just clarifying what the language in the UDO was going to reflect. Yeah. So, consistent with the ordinance.

So, um I can then Josh pull together those four. Again, I've I've got them because I already tracked changes. I just need to save you a clean copy then with those four amendments from plan commission and the one repeal updated and I can send that um through the mayor and can send it out for council. That's no problem. Any other questions for Amy before we open up for public comment on the first reading? Okay, now we'll open up to public comment. Uh again, please be succinct. uh give your remarks to the mayor and city council for consideration and we have time limit of four minutes. Is there anybody here would like to address the mayor and city council on the proposed UDO? Dar would like to have your name and address for the record. Jamie Hegmire 2612 Franks I own Lanier Winery. My question is um why are we limiting businesses developing on the riverfront to 1500 square feet.

Did I understand correctly or maybe I didn't? I did understand correctly. Just wondering. Yeah, I'm happy to address that. Um that was uh a recommendation at the plan commission level so that there wouldn't be large businesses, retail and com and restaurant for example developing on the riverfront in the in the open space. Why are we against that? Do we know why we're against We have three plan commission members who are also city council members. They could So, that would be a remark maybe from the plan commission.

Yeah, that that came up. Um the concern was brought to me by several people in the public. Um specifically within open space zoning. Um, and I sat down with Amy and Tony and we all kind of found that as a as a medium, a meeting point to accommodate the existing structures that are already down there. So, they won't be non-conforming and also to allow a little bit more flexibility within open space without defeating the purpose of having an open space zoning. So, if I understand correctly, defeating the purpose of open space, trying to keep things smaller is what we're kind of focused on. To a to a point. To a point.

Yeah. And that point sort of dissolves when we get to bigger buildings for residential. Is that also what I understand? Well, residential wouldn't be allowed in open space. it would it would only be serviceoriented retail and um restaurant type establishments, things that would serve the public. So there's open space and then there's riverfront district and the riverfront district was created specifically to avoid that open space restriction. I'm not understanding. Uh I

we have an apartment a luxury apartment building that's been proposed on the riverfront currently open space that is being reszoned to allow that luxury housing development in the flood plane on the riverfront that was open space but we're conserving the remaining open space and keeping that restricted to 1500 square ft which I think is a good idea. I'm just curious what the thought was behind [clears throat] keeping that small amount of square footage versus allowing a large versus do you mean rather than just expanding riverfront along the entire river?

I'm not asking about expanding the riverfront district. I'm asking if the riverfront district was created as a way to get beyond open space. the the restrictions for open space are pretty clear and and I don't have any disagreement with that. I don't think there's a problem with citizens uh and I certainly would agree with 1500 square ft. That seems reasonable. Um but I guess my question is how do we go from some things being an open space to being reszoned to something that allows much larger buildings creating a new district? How how what was the purpose of that since we're concerned about open space on the riverfront being left at 1500 square feet?

I'll have to refer that question to the mayor. Well, thank you. The riverfront district which was adopted last year by the plane commission city council was intended to bring new investment to a small portion of our riverfront as well as as we talked about earlier eliminate barriers, produce housing, all the things that come along with that. So, uh, I think what was intended through the plane commission amendments with this UDO was to with the rest of the open space restrict restrict other development there to uh smaller buildings if it was approved through the through that. Okay. So, the answer is yes. We we reszoned it so we could have a larger building there because we really don't want those large buildings any other place.

No, you don't. Okay. What am I missing? What you're missing is the year we spent, you know, bringing forward the re the riverfront development district which is three blocks on our riverfront which is dilapidated which has been suffering from disinvestment and we want to bring other investment there in that threeb block area listening to all the concerns of having other uh restricting other development on the open space along the riverfront. And your time's up. Thank you. I bet it is. Thank you.

It is 10 seconds. I think within the um within the open space zoning too, it's important to remember that the majority of that is is at a much um lower elevation than the area [clears throat] that did get reszoned as riverfront zoning. So the uses that could be within the rest of open space are already severely limited by um what can be developed in a flood plane and that goes beyond any regulations we're able to impose. Thank you.

Yes, Warren Oxford, 3611 West Ohio Riverview Road. I have two separate points on the UDO I'd like to address this evening. If possible, I'd like a little bit of leniency on time. We're not stacked up with 10 20 people to talk, but I'll try to keep it as short as possible. The uh first one that I want to address is the uh setbacks for commercial solar. And I don't know if it was an oversight or a just a difference in opinion. The commercial solar was changed to where they were going to match up pretty close to what the county had for setbacks and so forth. So there's a requirement that requires in certain zoning districts that if you have an existing residence and so forth, solar would have to be 500 foot from it. If there's not existing residences in certain districts, you still have to be 500 foot from the property line in R1, R2, or if it's something is plotted residential or R3. But that requirement is does not apply to your RA district. And I don't think really caught it much because the county doesn't have a residential agricultural district. It just has residential districts and agricultural. And currently you do not have a requirement to be 500 ft set back on the solar from residential agricultural property. Now if there's an existing building in that property they have to be five home they have to be 500 foot from it but not from the property. So you have quite a few owners of property that had purchased property in RA area that may build a future home on a portion of that property. when you had your your plan commission hearing and your meeting before the council, the vast majority of the people that you heard from that were opposed to the zoning change for solar lived in the RA district. And so I would suggest that you make an amendment and do so at this

time. It would be very simple amendment to make. Your current ordinance simply reads commercial solar setbacks from a parcel without a dwelling but platted for residential or zoned R1, R2, R3 or HDR 500 ft from non-participating property lines. I am just suggesting you add R3 to those categories. That would be R R A, excuse me, RA, R1, R2, R3. And that would give page 77. What's that? You're on page 77.

I believe it's on page 77. I don't have the whole document in place. So that would cover my concerns on the solar portion of it. The other area that I have a concern over is left over from the riverfront zoning side of it. When the riverfront zoning was done for multif family dwellings, it was set to where a multif family dwelling could be a permitted use. That also brought attention that you have other commercial districts that multif family units are permitted uses. But what's happened when that becomes a permitted use? Your zoning ordinance is not putting best practices into place to protect existing residents and property owners. you have positions when you've made those apartments of permitted use that somewhere along the line you're deciding well if we have enough money coming in for development if there's a ready grant if it's a project the mayor wants to go through we're don't have any problem of taking away existing property owners value of their property that was there you have people that bought property that they clearly had a designated riverview their Riverview was across space that was zoned open, had been zoned open for many, many years. Did not see any possibility of their view being disrupted, of them having 50 new neighbors next to them, the parking outflow from 52 neighbors.

War, I'm going to ask you to uh please wind up. I know you're trying to relitigate the riverfront. I'm not trying to relitigate. I'm expressing an opinion and uh the I'm asking that you would make those uses multif family dwellings a special exception not only in your riverfront district but also your central business your local business and your general business. There are way too many variances parking impact on existing property owners to make those automatic. We need to have that added protected safety. Okay, thank you for your input. You're welcome.

So, just to clarify, Warren is asking us to consider adding RA, R1, 2, and three. Correct. Just RA. Oh, just RA. Oh, okay. All the others exist. Thank you. We'll take that under advisement and discuss that with our administrator. Anybody else here would like to speak on ordinance 2026-4? Please state your name and address, please.

My name is Paula Weatherbe and I live at 2685 West Deputy Pike Road, Madison. And I would also like to ask to have that amendment done because I don't know why RA was left out of it. I live in RA and I've lived there for 50 years and I value nature and that's why people come to our town and the more that we can keep our natural resources the happier everybody's going to be. I mean big is not better and you look at New Washington, you look at Charles Town, we don't want to look like that. And but I'm getting off subject. So what I'm really asking is that you have the setbacks 500 for the RA just like all the others because you know it's people come to the town. You want people to come. You want growth. But what about the people that have lived here? What about the people who have voted you in and have a quality of life just like the people on the riverfront? They have their quality of life. People in the country have their quality of life. That's what they treasure. And just because we want to get big and we want to have all these people who haven't lived here for a lifetime, our family settled here in 1798. My third greatgrandfather signed the constitution of Indiana in Coridan representatives from Switzerland County. So please value the people who have lived here and settled this area and don't push us out. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. U again, we'll take that proposed amendment under advisement and I think we've worked really hard to make sure that we are protecting the quality of life for everybody in Madison and especially hearing your concerns over the past year. Uh and even prior to that when we were considering commercial solar um in the buffer zone, we've definitely listened for uh the opinions of the residents in the uh rural uh residential agriculture. Anyone else here would like to give remarks with regard to 2026-4? Now, we'll move on. Joe, I'll turn it back over to you. The next one is, are we at the uh ordinance number 2026-5, which I don't know that I have?

If you have anything that you're leaving for us to review, I I'll take Oh, sorry. Okay. I haven't seen anything. So, yeah, this is including me. All right. Thank you. This is ordinance number 2026-5, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Madison, Indiana, amending certain portions of the city of Madison traffic code ordinance as found in chapter 73 of the city of Madison municipal code.

Uh council's first reading, so we'll open it up to your questions and public comment. Uh this uh proposed stop sign was brought to me by um as a request by several residents and the uh second and central neighborhood. Um it's been discussed for very long time. Um we ended up reducing the speed limit through there uh a while back and um but it's still according to traffic data that the mayor provided us with um I think it was what 50% of vehicles are are still still exceeding the uh speed limit down there and with

uh the Mad Paddle Brewery um becoming a pretty busy spot now. uh this that central central street quarter is kind of a a buffer zone in between the commercial and residential through there. So I I um would ask that the council support placing the stop sign there just to ensure safety in the area.

Yeah. And I'll just mention as well we had several temporary signs out on Second and Third Street during our main street construction and that probably revealed, you know, the benefit of slowing some cars down. and uh we removed those because the the work was completed and those signs were temporary and um and that's why we're bringing via an ordinance to council to consider. And I know we have some residents here. If there aren't any other questions or comments by council, we'll open it up to open it up to anybody who would like to give a remark relative to ordinance 2026-2, which is establishing a two-way street at Central and Second Street. Good afternoon, council members. Kevin Watkins, uh, resident 222 West Second in the Central Avenue corridor, I suppose. Um, yes, absolutely. During the construction, the, uh, stop signs, the temporary stop signs in place, uh, seem to impose a significant difference on the traffic rate down there. Um, we're essentially a neighborhood of of homes, families, uh, dogs, cats, kids, bicycles, crossroads with side road parking on both sides, parallel parking on both sides of the road, which make visibility uh, challenging. I live on the corner of Second and Popppler. People come down to the end of Popppler and have to look around the traffic or around the parked cars to be able to see anything. Cars can approach very quickly through there. Um the uh the temporary signs distinctly made a difference in the rate of travel through our neighborhood. Um and as soon as those signs came down, we all of a sudden noticed that uh speeds were not just creeping up but lurching forward I would say. Um and very dramatic difference. uh it made us uh the neighbors uh along that section of the street for sure appreciate the difference and uh and so that's why we I think advanced the cause

and and hope that you all will uh consider that a permanent uh stop sign. Um I can see the benefit going all the way down Second Street. I know my neighbors to the west uh there was also a temporary sign at Vine Street and uh and I think that was significant. Otherwise traffic's unabated from Broadway. um almost all the way down and and so I think that you may consider at a future meeting uh taking on that end of town as well. Certainly for the moment uh I know myself and my neighbors are strongly in favor of you uh making that stop a permanent stop and easing the traffic flow through our neighborhood. We appreciate your time very much. Thank you Kevin.

Tom Stark, 202 West Second Street. I'm on right on the corner um of Central and West Second Street. And we've lived [clears throat] there now. It'll um soon be 10 years. And what we're very excited about the development that's happened on Second Street, the grocery store, Mad Paddle being reopened, um Vintage Lanes and Wine Bar, but that has increased the traffic quite a bit. Not complaining about that, but it has always been a problem. um and now it's exasperated by you know all of the people coming down to enjoy downtown Madison. So um what I have noticed over the last 10 years is that um Central is a major corridor down to the river for our parades um for movie in the park festivities that we have down there year uh year round and um we have a lot of children that are coming down there. We've had two close calls, one with an elderly person and one with a child. And again, um, as Kevin said, not being able to see around the cars that park there when they're downtown enjoying everything that we have. So, um, I would really, um, like to see that stop sign put back up. It did help it. People slowed down, stopped actually, and looked um, and you know, our festival season is gearing up. So, um I think you know it would be better to be on the safe side of having a stop sign there and protecting our citizens as well as our visitors to Madison. Thanks.

Thank you, Tom.

Anyone else? I I would just say that I think we needed to do more a more comprehensive review of traffic in our community. And yesterday, Chief Munt gave an overview of of uh you know, the uh number of calls with the city of Madison Police Department was over 13,000 calls, I believe, chief, that Madison Police Department officers responded to. And the biggest complaint and probably safety issue other than, you know, the serious, you know, crimes that that might be occurred, it was drugrelated. Uh, chief, I think you you said it was traffic related and people just will not slow down. Um, so I think we need to do more comprehensive analysis of where these more stop signs or more uh traffic control devices need to be installed. We're spending a lot of time and money already in looking at major corridors like Main Street and making multi-million dollar investments in pedestrian safety and vehicular safety too because it does help avoid uh collisions as well, crosswalks, more lighting, more signage, clearing of the trees, more visibility, traffic calming. Uh the West End is going to experience uh uh great and much needed traffic uh control devices by the end of this year. And we talked a lot earlier about why are we relooking at our zoning? We're reooking at our zoning because decades sometimes go by before we uh really take a step back and look at how has our community changed. What are what are our needs now? And uh you know I'm you know having worked with INDOT I know that INDOT's a lot about moving cars pretty quickly to their destinations and we've been kind of struggling with that. How do we get the cars to slow down and realize that we're the destination and because we are the destination we have way more pedestrian traffic than ever before. And I mentioned at my state of

the city last week we had two and a half million people on our riverfront last year. And as as Tom and Kevin were talking about, a lot of them are coming from our main street shops and walking a few blocks to hit the riverfront. So there's a lot of a lot of crosswalk uh concerns, but I think we do need to do a comprehensive evaluation and advocate for that. And we'll have to just take this sequentially. If you look at our our book of ordinances, it's very rare uh that we have added uh a lot of traffic management across the city in a really really long time. So, I'm glad that it's always better when the concerns come from the residents who live there. They express that to their council people that we do the analysis, put together a plan, and uh and now we have the opportunity to to hopefully make that corner safer and others in the future.

Is are there any other stop signs between Broadway and Jefferson right there? Is that the only one? Would that be the only one? Broadway. Sorry. Broadway and West. Sorry. Broadway and West. Is it currently there's one at Mil Street? Oh, I'm sorry. That's beyond Broadway. Excuse me. Yeah. No, no. Supposed to be the only West and then Broadway.

Yeah. And they're right. Traffic has picked up. Uh it's already a busy corridor, but it's it's just getting busier with more activity to do in that area. Uh this is the first reading. Uh any other public comments? Council, do you have anything else to add? If not, we can move to second. Just thank you for coming.

Yeah. Uh, our second reading will be at the Tuesday, March 17th council meeting. There will also be another opportunity for public comment there before council uh takes an action on the ordinance adoption. Nothing to be there. We'll move on to the agenda. And I'd like to recess the regular council meeting and call to order the public hearing for ordinance 2026-2 Muny project which is a vacation. Turn it back over to my council. I don't need to. Sorry, Joe.

Yep. This is dealing with ordinance number 2026-2 an ordinance of the common council of city medicine dealing with certain alleys and streets and uh talking about there at the EOMY site. Um, we're going to open it up for a public We're going to recess uh the council meeting and open up the public hearing as it pertains uh to this request. Welcome back. I know that you presented uh to the board of public works a couple of weeks ago and the board of public works did did give this a favorable recommendation, but would you please introduce yourself again to council?

Sure. Uh my name is Aaron Schmal. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Lewis and Campus out of Indianapolis. Uh we represent a number of school corporations around the state and I'm pleased to be here representing Madison Madison Consolidated Schools. Uh we're here on the ordin the second reading of ordinance 26-2. Um as you may know uh there's a school currently my which is going to be demolished and there will be an early learning center uh replaced at that location. Uh the school owns a number of parcels along Laneir Street and three of those parcels have uh alley or street easements uh but they are two of the alley ements are unused and the street easement is a private access to the school. And so because of the way that the new building will be configured, we're seeking to have those existing easements vacated uh so that the development can proceed as planned. If you also want to go ahead and address

Yes. the Yeah, go ahead. The uh so the existing the ordinance that was in the packet. Um

there has a uh section three related to uh existing or future utility uses. Um, there are no existing utilities in those easements and uh, I think we confirmed today with the utilities director that there will be no planned future utilities for those uh, easements either. And so I think what we would propose doing is striking section three and then renumbering sections four and five accordingly.

Yeah. So, that would require an a uh an amendment um by council in order to do so and we can do that after we close the public hearing and then have the actual second reading of uh of the ordinance. Um I that's frankly pretty boilerplate language that we have always put in these street and alley vacations. However, after talking with the applicant, and this is a bit unique, right, because it's all on one parcel and it's all stuff that they own, I talked with Brian and Brian had no issue with not having that in there because there would just be no reason uh for um utilities to be in those areas.

We're already serving the surrounding area in different ways and that's not needed there. So those there would be still easements for the edge of the properties I assume that are not covered by this. So along Lamir Street there's I'm presume there's a right of way that is not impacted by this. Yeah. If so the threements are here. This is an alley ement. This is the existing drive which I believe is street

to road and this is the other alley ement there's no there's no other [clears throat] that road will stay in place as a city road we don't currently maintain that right the you talking about tilman would go away and it'll be they'll work on a new entrance with regard to the plan for the early learning center Okay,

these are so right now these are plotted separately because the emancy owns the non-developed areas and the school what's the what the term was school district uh building corporation owned the actually developed portions where the building was that's yeah the so the building corporation owns Eio building I believe and then the school corporation owns the vacant parcels. Well, is that going to change with the new development? Will the the plotting Well, the the only reason that there's the building corporation owns the the school building is so that they can issue bonds on it. Yes. But they are split into different parcels today, right?

Correct. So when the new development happens, will that parcel arrangement change or will it stay the same? Will any of the vacated lots be built on? I guess they will be right. No, the way the way that I saw the plan that there's there still will be an access where Tilman is um but there will be a parking lot in front of the school. So the the building is not actually going to move forward into those parcels. So the part the lot layout will stay the same with the new building for the most part. Yes. And so basically they need parking because I mean it's just two 12- foot pieces of grass, right? And then the road itself that we're saying we're vacating.

That's correct. Yes. Okay. [clears throat] Is there anything else from the council at this time? Because I was going to go ahead and see if there's anything from the public. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anything from the public as it pertains to this ordinance and uh the public hearing? Okay, seeing none, I would uh suggest that the public hearing is now closed and we will go back to our regularly scheduled programming and uh we can take this up now on ordinance number 2026-2 and that's an ordinance of the common council of the city of Madison vacating certain alleys and streets in the city of Madison. And again, this is the EOMY project. And so, is there any further questions or comments from the council as it pertains to this?

I was going to go ahead and propose that section be Yes. Is this the appropriate time? Yes. Okay. So, I would move that the section currently labeled three in our ordinance be deleted. Section four becomes section three and section five becomes section four. Okay. Is there a second? Seconded. Okay. Uh, can we have a roll call vote on that? Any discussion? Any discussion from the audience? No. Can we have seconded that? Sorry. Uh, Josh. Josh, can we have a roll call vote? Joel Storm? Yes. Joshua Schaefer? Yes. Lucy Datillo?

Yes. Carla Krebs? Yes. Patrick Teanol? Yes. Thank you for that. And is there any Okay, now you probably I'll help you. Um, and is there any um anything else on the ordinance as a whole?

Let's vote. [laughter] Okay. I don't see anything else from the council. Is there anything from the audience? Seeing and hearing none, we will now have a roll call vote on ordinance number two. Joel Storm, yes. Joshua Schaefer, yes. Lucy Datillo, yes. Carla Krebs, yes. Patrick Teel, yes. Mayor, will you help get the information to the clerk as it pertains to the amendment? Absolutely. Okay. Y because I think that was a little probably confusing. Work on that. So, okay. All right.

Thank you so much for being here and uh we really appreciate the investment that the school and the community is making in the early learning center. If you have any questions, let me know.

And the city of Madison is proud to be part of it. Uh we made a pretty sizable financial contribution along with Bethany Legacy Foundation and other members of our community and we're very excited about getting started. Thank you for being here tonight. Okay, we have our final ordinance tonight on second reading and that is the ordinance uh for additional appropriations and that's 2026-3. Is there any questions or comments for Mindy um as it pertains to this? Okay, seeing none, anything from the audience as it pertains to this? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote. Patrick Teanol,

yes. Carla Krebs, yes. Lucy Datillo, yes. Joshua Schaefer, yes. Joel Joel Storm, yes. Thank you. Sorry to take us back in time a second. Joe, [clears throat] you might take a look at the EONY ordinance as written. It looks like something got copy pasted, duplicated. It's hard to tell because the way this was printed, but looks like sections B and C may have gotten duplicated within the text of the ordinance. Probably considered a scrier's error. But what uh what page I did not two.

Oh, okay. So, there's a 12oot alley between lots 22 and 23 on page two, paragraph C. And I think on page four looks like the whole thing got which is another now therefore so it kind of started as Joe can clarify or not kind of started as a recital and then it's like now therefore okay you can explain it whether or not yeah if it's good then great I just yeah I think it's okay it's can yeah with the way it was printed it's hard to follow up yeah it's honestly I think

for future references um I'm hopeful that maybe we can it would be super helpful if these are not front and back that is really makes it difficult in my opinion. So it makes it difficult to follow but I think it's all there. The numbers are or the pages are numbered. [laughter]

I understand. Okay. Well, I think that concludes the business. Let's go back in time just a little bit. And that is um council. Are there any reports, recommendations or other business from standard select committees? Okay. Um, and on under reports of city officials, I do want to um ask council to approve a nomination for the tree board. I circulated an email earlier today. I do have a vacancy on the tree board and I've nominated um from a member uh who is on the tree board actually uh assisted with the nomination, Lisa York. Lisa is a Madison resident. She's currently renovating a home downtown on First Street and uh her experience is in uh home renovations, construction, and landscaping. So, I think she'd be a benefit to the board and to the city.

I do need I would move, okay, that we accept the treeboard appointment of Lisa York. Thank you. Second. I'll second that. All in favor? I I oppose. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. And um now we'll move into uh public comments before we get into mayor's remarks. Are there any public comments here for the signup sheet? Um all of these people have already spoken. They didn't realize that they could speak openly during the ordinance process. Debbie Beaman left, correct?

She's on here. Okay. I'll be mindful of everybody's time because it's been a good meeting with lots of substance. Uh, but I do want to go over a couple things. I want to give you a legislative update. The 2026 legis legislative session concluded last Friday around I should say Saturday morning around 1 in the morning and there was a lot of bills in there that we were watching that we were involved in aim advocating uh working very closely with our state senator Randy Maxwell and our state representative Alex Zimmerman. Both of them did a very good job through the session in representing the city of Madison and Jefferson County's interests. I am very pleased to say that one of the bills that we were really working on very hard was uh Senate Bill 179 and that was an INDOT bill in Indiana Department of Transportation. Uh that was uh signed off by both chambers and it's on the governor's desk to be executed. We believe it will be and coincidentally yesterday we received a call from INDOT uh saying that they want to fund our 2026 CCMG project. And if you recall, we applied in October um for the uh from the last legislative s session, there was only $100 million allocated statewide for the CCMG. That's a uh community crossings matching grant program, which is a very significant funding source for Madison, Jefferson County handover and in communities all across the state relative to our uh uh road improvement plans. And so we had a very good conversation and was able to very quickly um uh get back in action with regard to that uh [clears throat] application. And the application uh a new application round is just opened and it's only for those communities who were not funded from the um first round of

2026. So all of this has to be done in a relatively short period of time. So, we will have a uh uh advertisement over the next couple of weeks and a bid opening on March the 23rd for the um road um application that we made. If you recall, we did a lot of discussion about our road inventory. Uh how do we better asset manage it? What the ratings were? It was going to take us a decade to get our average rating, I'm sorry, our typical road a uh uh rating to average because many of them are below average. So, I'm very pleased uh to report that the million-doll application that we made. Um we're now in the process of uh getting that funded, it is still on a first come, first serve basis. There was $75 million added back into the CCMG program for another round. uh very optimistic because we are ready to go uh candidly and just as a reminder what streets were in that after working with you and our asset management uh team and Mindy and others it'll it'll involve resurfacing of Craigmont Street, Croer Avenue, Broadway Street uh North and South to Third Street from Main Street. From Main Street, correct? Yep. And then third street from Craigmont down to the east side of Broadway, I think. Um, is that about right?

Where we th Yeah. Craigmont to the east side of Broadway Street. So, that was part of our asset management plan and uh we'll work very diligently to get that in place. There were other bills that we were watching and working on. Um, one of the more significant ones that I want to mention was House Bill 101 that was approved by both chambers. It is on the governor's desk. Uh, there were some significant differences with that bill uh than when it started and that is a planning and zoning bill. What the state legislature is making a priority is housing production across the state. We are in a significant deficit of housing everywhere and in Madison it's in the hundreds of units and as you know we have a very uh comprehensive housing plan which includes downtown uh uh it includes uh infill development the affordable apartments on the hilltop a new uh single family entry level subdivision partnerships with Habitat as well as other developers. But what this bill does is it's going to start holding communities accountable to eliminating barriers to housing. And uh I would like to say that you know we are adopting best practices in our UDO and that is the what we're adopting in our UDO is recognized statewide as best practice. Um although there may be other opinions on what that ordinance should look like and how aggressive we should be in producing housing, it's undeniable that we need more housing. It's also undeniable that we have very outdated ordinances and regulations and we're still living in the past because much of what we use for our decision-m is 30 years old. But I do want to just uh end with this and this is what it says. By

the end of 2026, all cities, towns, and counties must conduct a public hearing to evaluate their uni uh unified development ordinances to determine if they are adequately promoting housing development in their communities. And among the things they must consider are density, rules around accessory dwelling units, reuse of unused commercial buildings for residential development, allowable floor area or lots, garage sizes and placement, roof pitch lot size setbacks, off- streetet parking, design standards, height limits, impact fee zones, streamlining permit processing timelines, property tax abatements for higher density development, and donating vacant and for affordable development. I could go on. There's a lot of other things in that bill. I'm just expressing the fact that uh we started on our process a year and a half ago. It's been a key initiative for a long time. It's taken a long time to get where we are, but you are on the right side of this argument at the right time with what Madison, Indiana needs. And uh I I I think that it reinforces what's happening at the state level is reinforcing what we're doing here in Madison, Indiana. There are other bills. Uh one in particular that may affect us is the is township mergers. We have 10 townships in in Jefferson County. There's over a thousand across the state. Uh that's a that's a layer of government in many areas that is not very effective. In some areas it is. So there's going to be uh mergers and consolidations and reorganizations of townships based on a uh rating criteria that the state created. And then uh the other big thing that I think is worth that's also on Governor Brown's desk uh is House Bill uh 1210 which uh deals

with lots of things uh Department of Local Government Finance and others. But one of the implications from Senate Bill One that was adopted last year, as you know, was implemented over a 5-year period was going to require that the city of Madison, Jefferson County, town of Hanover, and all communities across the state adopt a local uh a municipal local income tax in 2027 to be effective in 2028. that has now been pushed back a year so that more time can be uh utilized to gather the information and then also work collaboratively between the city of Madison and Jefferson County uh to figure out what's the best approach for our all of our uh citizens in Madison Jefferson County. That's a that's a big change. We need that time. It's going to be very difficult. It is going to create a local income tax on the residents of Madison and Jefferson County uh to replace revenue that was lost over this major property tax uh bill that slightly reduced your residential property taxes. But there's still a lot of bills in there. Governor still has to sign quite a few. We're monitoring all of them. I want again I want to thank state senator Maxwell uh and uh representative Zimmerman for their help. And then as we move into the rest of this year, remember our year goes we're on a calendar year basis. The state is on a fiscal year effective July 1st. The um population limits change for the matching contributions on CCMG. Right now, our matching contributions 50 cents or 50%. So, meaning it's dollar for dollar. If we get $500,000 from the state, we have to contribute $500,000. And that's how we're able to do a

million dollar uh worth of road work. We need to do $10 million of neighborhood streets. This is completely separate from Main Street. We've worked on a different financing mechanism for uh the multi-million dollar investment in Main Street. But one of the one of the things that uh Senator Maxwell and Representative Zimmerman did was work to get into the bill that that population limit was reduced to 12,500 people. So while we're still using the 2020 census data will benefit from a lower match. Instead of a 50% match, it's going to be approximately 20%. That in the typical course of a year will save us a4 million dollars that we can redeploy elsewhere. Uh I think you guys are on the AIM lists. I left you a copy of the AIM summary. Uh we're still working on other things that you know have a big impact to Madison and uh I'll I'll pause there and see if anybody has any comments on the legislative update and CCMG. Happy that we're moving forward on that. Last thing I'll mention is uh thanks to everyone for attending my state of city last week. It was great. We've got a phenomenal uh amount of new things and new investment happening in in our city and uh this is ReadAcross America week. So today I got to uh be a second grader for a while and it was a lot of fun. So I would encourage anybody here if you have an opportunity go to one of our local schools and uh or at home with your kids and grandkids um read a book and I'll pause there and guess case council has anything next meeting Tuesday March 17th. Can you give us the clipboard? We have not been able to sign in on the um hearing.

And if there's anybody else that came in late, uh we would appreciate if you would take the time to sign the clipboard. Here we go. I would move to ajourn. I second. All fair, please say I. I. Any post? Thank you. Thanks everybody for being here.