Urban Design Commission

Meeting Summaries

Meeting Details

August 13, 2025

By Tori Cooper

The Urban Design Commission met Wednesday, walking into what appeared to be a rather daunting agenda considering their typical debate time; however, the majority of the items were moved to the consent agenda. Commissioner McLean was acting chair for the meeting, as Commissioner Bernau was out for a planned absence. In addition to the somewhat unsteady footing caused by not having their usual leader, there were technical difficulties with the ‘raise hand’ function in Zoom—where some commissioners could not find and/or access the raise hand function to second motions and vote. Those who were unable to raise their hand virtually were encouraged to raise their hand physically for Staff and the acting Chair to see their votes. The out-of-the-gate confusion was only added to when Commissioner Asad recused himself from multiple items, leading to tricky maneuvering of items on the consent agenda. Legistars 89064 and 89409 were moved and passed without Commissioner Asad’s involvement before adding 89408 and passing after his seconding of the motion. Here is what passed on the Consent Agenda:

Legistar 89064: Comprehensive Design Review for Signage (CDR) for 905 Huxley Street in District 12.

Legistar 89409: Comprehensive Design Review for Signage (CDR) for 1003 Huxley Street in District 12.

Legistar 89408: Comprehensive Design Review for Signage (CDR) former 4201 Buckeye Road in District 15.

Final Approval for Fair Oaks and East Washington Avenue Mixed-Use Development

Finding their footing, the UDC moved on to discuss Legistar 87242: final approval on a new mixed-use building at the corner of 3357-3375 East Washington Avenue and 922-930 North Fair Oaks Avenue in Urban Design District 5, located in District 12.

Although they raced through the item during UDC’s last meeting, the developers were asked to start fresh this time for fairness. They recapped their plans for a collection of existing commercial and residential lots that will be combined for a mixed-use building, again noting two inner parcels that will help break up the site and “add diversity” to the lot.

The developers noted the increased overall size of building one by extending it along East Washington Avenue, which allowed for additional rooftop plaza space. They have also added a six-unit townhouse building, which will have single parking garages, three bedroom units, and be two stories tall. The townhomes’ design is intended to complement building one in aesthetic, color, and material types.

The developer then reminded the commissioners of the added dog run in the southeast portion, as well as a privacy fence along the southeast lot line. There were also changes made to the landscaping, with the developer crediting the landscaping improvements to the missing Commissioner Bernau. Specifically, plans now include cedar trees in response to more screening from a landscape perspective. This is meant to aid in blocking vehicle headlights and some of the light pollution from nearby street lamps.

The design was additionally modified to include UDC’s prior suggestion for walk-up units on the North Fair Oaks Street side; however, the developers were getting concerned about footing and the walk-ups’ foundations. This was largely driven by the sloping and grade drop, as they are trying to work within the existing grading and sidewalk so there is less disruption to the current set-up. Due to this, they are looking at rotating stairs, but cannot guarantee the walk-ups will make it into the final build.

On a more assuring note, the BRT will have a “strong connection” to the corner retail space and become what the developer hopes will be a “symbiotic relationship.” As such, they have enhanced the two story commercial space located in the corner of the building that sits at the Fair Oaks and East Washington intersection so there is more public space. They then added the building will be affordable housing units and they will be seeking WEDA assistance once they get closer to finishing construction.

As for the interior, the developer highlighted three elevators total for the building. This reflects one additional elevator since the last proposal was approved, which is meant to make the building more accessible and less cumbersome to navigate. That being said, they are still working with a garbage contractor, but the goal is to have dumpsters in the underground garage. The collection would roll them to the truck, empty, then put them back.

Shifting their focus back to the new townhouses, the developer again stated these are going to be a slightly more muted version of the main complex in order to aid in the transition into the current residential area. Essentially, they want it to be complementary, but did not want it to be a stark transition into the single home residential area located to the southwest of the development.

Comparison view of main building, as rendered from the North Fair Oaks parking entrance

Commissioner Asad asked about the ceiling height in the townhomes and whether or not the height of the building meant the developer planned to hide a condenser on the roof. They responded that ceilings were planned to be nine feet high, with a parapet height of 28 feet. They do hope to install a condenser on the roof, but if they are unable to hide one on top of the building, they will explore adding one “somewhere around the building.” Overall, Commissioner Asad liked the design, stating “something is very vibrant and just pops with this,” and said it complements the design of the apartments well. The Commission and KBA later returned to discussing the windows for the townhomes, with some commissioners questioning placement and size. The developer walked UDC through the structural constraints they are under, as well as still needing to determine the condenser’s placement—which could impact the need for extra support and space above the windows.

Commissioner Klehr followed Commissioner Asad’s questioning of the ceiling height by requesting clarification on the addition of 18 units to the main apartment building, asking about the scale of the type of streets it is on—specifically about lowering the elevation. The developer stated that building costs impact their ability to do more groundwork and they did not look at reducing the number of units as they are trying to recoup the building cost when considering the revenue input from rent.

Moving on, Commissioner Mbilinyi commented how she loves the colors and is glad to see how Madison is coming together with some of the new developments; however, she questioned the white paneling being used. The developer asserted they meant to offer some relief to the darker colors used without adding too many colors to the building. Commissioner Mbilinyi pushed for black panels to highlight the other colors more, but the developer said they really wanted the white due to how muted everything looked when they did renderings with darker colors. Meanwhile, Commissioner Asad jumped in to say he actually likes it, to which Commissioner McLean agreed. Nevertheless, Commissioner Asad suggested a light gray to make it less dramatic and be a happy medium between UDC and the developer.

Rendering showing white paneling Mbilinyi disagrees with

Commissioner McLean returned to the question posed by the developer about the walk-ups and current grading issues. McLean said he thought having enclosed patios would be fine if they could not safely implement the stairs, but that some outdoor space should be provided to the ground floor residents along North Fair Oaks.

Image highlighting concerns over structural integrity of walk-ups

Commissioner Klehr spoke on the pedestrian and cyclist experience in Madison, saying a lot of the new buildings have not done a good job of transitioning between commercial and residential areas. She did admit that they are completed in the same language and complement the neighboring residences well aesthetically, but that the transition for those traversing the area is rough. This led Commissioner Asad to ask about future plans for the neighborhood and how this will impact the transition from apartments into single family homes, with Commissioner Klehr mentioning another development happening across North Fair Oaks that will be four to five stories high. The two discussed how the two will communicate, with Commissioner Klehr noting that the single family homes will likely eventually be torn down and turned into complexes. Ultimately, they agreed that the building fit with future plans, even if the building heights are currently a bit disjointed and do not communicate as well now as they have the potential to in the future with new buildings.

Due to the number of changes made from previous proposals and UDC being the approving body, the Commission moved for initial approval. KBA will come back for final consideration on the project once they have refined the townhome proportions and main building design to soften the North Fair Oaks elevation, explored color changes to the white paneling, and have made a plan to add more landscaping around the townhouses and within the parking area to make it less car-centered.

Central at the Forge Affordable Housing Proposal

Up next, the Commission heard from developers on Legistar 88916, which proposes a new mixed-use building in Urban Design District (UDD) 4, located at 2150 Commercial Avenue and 2231-2235 Myrtle Street in District 12.

Northwestern corner street view rendering, provided by JLA Architects

Rachel Creek, from The Annex Group, gave some background on the developer and their initiatives. Creek highlighted their focus being an affordable multi-family housing group who is currently active in 15 to 20 states. Their newest endeavor, “Central at the Forge,” is slated to be constructed on the old Oscar Meyer lot, located near the corner of Commercial Avenue and Packers Avenue on Madison’s north side, and includes five levels of structured parking.

Barry Yang from JLA Architects presented their design plans, noting there will be 86 units per acre over about 2.6 acres of development and 4 acres total of land (241 total units). Their plan includes affordable one-, two-, and three-bedroom options, as well as commercial space. Due to the length of the building, JLA has incorporated two entrances, one on either end of the building, and has opted for three colors of fiber-cement material to visually reduce the building scale and break up the facade. Yang also noted the added parapets to the building’s corners to aid in breaking up the facade, as well as emphasize building ends.

Building plans showing one-bedroom units in green, two-bedroom units in yellow, three-bedroom units in orange, and commercial space on north and south ends in red

Yang then drew attention to how one part of the parking structure is exposed to the street, leading to the decision to add metal fins to the design. This pattern was then repeated for continuity, creating both vertical and horizontal patterns in the plan. As part of a similar pattern, Yang stated JLA chose not to use red brick on the commercial sections in order to de-emphasize them and instead draw attention to the more vibrant red used on the residential sections. Ultimately, their goal was to make the commercial space non-competing with other corners as far as imagery.

Going back to the concerning length of the building, Yang notes the building’s somewhat odd shape. This was intended to again break up the facade, in addition to offering a respite area for a courtyard. According to Yang, the courtyard will be used to increase opportunity for social interaction by offering a barbecue area, fire pit, and benches.

Site plan highlighting shape of building, parking structure location, and proposed courtyard space

Once JLA and Annex finished their presentation, the Commission heard from the sole public comment registrant, Kristen, who lives in the Sherman Neighborhood. Although her comment seemed somewhat lost, she stated “that’s a big building for that plot, first of all,” before making what seemed to be a complaint about the number of new buildings going up and the amount of new people they were bringing into the neighborhood. She then shifted her focus to flooding in the area, complaining about the police department being “very short [staffed]… you’re lucky if you get a phone call back.” While somewhat confusing, it appeared she was attempting to argue that the City needs to fix the flooding issues before continuing to develop much needed housing.

Commissioner McLean let Kristen finish her time before clarifying not all of her comment is applicable to what UDC is discussing tonight. Staff joined in to recommend contacting Planning Commission and potentially getting City Engineering involved.

Commissioner Klehr refocused the group, asking the applicant why they decided on one long building instead of multiple smaller ones. Their answer was simple: density means affordable housing, plus, having parking available meets Madisonians’ needs. They restated their attempt to break up the building by using the “S” shape, including a courtyard, and the outlay of materials. Commissioner Klehr then mentioned comments received from the other group working this site, asking about future coordination between that development and the one before them tonight.

In a somewhat defensive tone, Creek asked for more information. Commissioner Klehr stated Dan Seibel is the new owner of the Oscar Meyer facility and has plans for development. Specifically, the commissioner asked if the developer is working with the other landowner to coordinate at all. Ramping up their defense, Creek stated “no, this is our land, we aren’t working with them.” Commissioner Klehr clocked the tone, but stood on business, clarifying the two groups could work together to make this a more cohesive, coordinated project. Creek quickly realized she was becoming unnecessarily defensive, but stated she thinks zoning switches at the other plot to IL, but would be willing to work with them for smoother zoning and property transitions.

Street view rendering of Central at the Forge

Commissioner Mbilinyi asked why the base looks like it’s coming halfway up the building, making it seem as if the building is cut in half in some areas. Yang argued JLA is trying to emphasize the corner in order to draw pedestrians into areas where there is either a residential amenity or retail space as a sort of undesignated wayfinding for pedestrians. Commissioner Mbilinyi clarified that she feels like there is no base articulated by the difference in material heights—specifically focusing on the facade as a whole, not just what is housing. The architect continued to argue, stating this is their version of a contemporary design. With some back and forth between the Commissioner and architect on what exactly contemporary means, they ultimately ended the conversation with an unsaid agreement to disagree.

Commissioner McLean noted that “someplace in our hearts we all have something to say about that” with respect to the length of the building, but reminded everyone of the overall consensus this is a very long building on a very long-view, open street. Taking on the “good cop” role, he stated seeing “a little play within the canopies within the residential massing.” That being said, he agreed with fellow commissioners there needs either vertical or spatial relief; however, the more he looked at it, the more he started to like it. Commissioner McLean then asked Commissioner Klehr for her thoughts, with Commissioner Klehr stating she finds the brick halfway down on the right a bit confusing. She was not sure what was going on with the design, reassuringly adding maybe it is commercial space and she just is not understanding the plan.

Northeast corner street view rendering of Central at the Forge

Yang re-stated how red brick is applied where there is commercial space on the ground floor, dark gray brick veneer is used where there is residential, then another color is used to signify building entries. Commissioner Klehr, seemingly sensing Yang’s irritation, reminded the group that this is an informational hearing, pushed her point that there is room for improvement, and urged all to take notes for future appearances with UDC.

Going off of Yang’s statement regarding residential entrances, Commissioner McLean asked if there is direct outside access to units—similar to the walkups UDC has been pushing for with the East Washington and North Fair Oaks development. Yang did not directly answer, but stated there are sidewalks along the roads between the buildings that offer building access. Commissioner McLean pushed his desire to see more pedestrian-human access and lively streetscapes, not just central access points, by asserting the plan needs some sort of open-air or separation.

Before moving into deliberation, Staff Vaughn reminded UDC this was an informational meeting and there was no action to be taken. Notes were taken on UDC’s suggestions, with commissioners clarifying their intentions. Commissioner Klehr also added there is a sense of history with this site. While it does not need to look like the old Oscar Meyer building, the developer should take into consideration the potential restoration of the older buildings; furthermore, this property should not be treated as a standalone development and should instead work with the existing structures and history of the area. Commissioner McLean mentioned plants in a clear nod to Commissioner Bernau’s absence, and Commissioner Hellrood mentioned the nearby bike trail and BRT stop. He highlighted how there is “a lot of action going on here” and wanted it to be more publicly accessible. Ending the meeting on an authoritative, but gentle note, Commissioner Hellrood directed the developers to “give that space back to the community” and make it a more walkable district that is hospitable to pedestrians.

July 30th, 2025

By Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

Wednesday’s Urban Design Commission meeting was incredibly short July 30th, after failing to reach quorum on time then losing quorum at 5pm. Although brief, they were able to move one item to the consent agenda and hear the final presentation on previously unfinished business before the meeting adjourned.

Mixed-Use Building on East Washington Avenue at Fair Oaks

Despite ultimately being referred to their August 13th meeting, UDC heard from the applicant team overseeing Legistar 87242: New Mixed-Use Building located in Urban Design District (UDD) 5, located at 3357-3375 East Washington Avenue and 922-930 North Fair Oaks Avenue in District 12.

The developer highlighted principal changes to the project—mainly the acquisition of two additional properties which will be included in the updated site design.

Satellite view of two newly secured parcels

New site plan, which includes six additional townhouse units

Thanks to the new properties, developers were able to add an additional building on the southwest corner of the property. This is planned to be a two-story, townhouse style development comprised of six units with attached garages—bumping the total number of dwelling units on site to 177.

The developer also noted improved design to the main building, including an increase in underground parking below the main building, expansion of the rooftop plaza, and adding a dog run for residents. The developer then drew attention to the modification to the Fair Oaks side of the building, which now includes additional commercial space square footage, private entries to ground-floor units, and increased landscaping.

While trying to make haste to meet the Commission’s 5pm cut-off, the developer did one final review of the building layout. In his recap, he confirmed the developers’ plans to include one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Rounding things off and adding the cherry on top, the developer added that, based on previous input from UDC and neighborhood meetings, there will be a privacy fence installed to shield the neighboring residences, but it was not shown on the renderings for visibility reasons.

Commissioner McLean asked Staff if they feel recommendations have been met, but Staff Vaughn encouraged Commissioners to discuss, rather than responding and having UDC blindly follow their recommendations. Commissioner McLean then asked the developers if there was any possibility for soft screening to aid in the sloping and visibility of the site on the East Washington side, west of the twelve parking stalls, butting up to the neighboring residence. [Matt] clarified, stating currently the parking stalls have not been fully approved. He and his team are working with the owner of the neighboring property to determine the best use of the space and whether or not they can widen the opening. At the moment, it is currently only available as an easement access point from East Washington Avenue.

Just as the meeting started to pick up, Commissioner Bernau interrupted to remind UDC they have a hard stop at 5pm due to the impending loss of quorum. At first, Commissioner Bernau began to rush the Commission into making a movement; however, Staff Vaughn stepped in to remind the Chair he has the ability to adjourn meetings without making a motion, so a decision did not need to be made on this tonight. Out of fairness to the applicant team, Commissioner Bernau made a motion to refer Legistar 87242 and Legistar 88916 to their August 13th meeting.

For Next Time

Had the commission been able to address the final item of the night, they would have received an informational presentation regarding Legistar 88916: New Mixed-Use Building in Urban Design District (UDD) 4 located at 2150 Commercial Avenue and 2231-2235 Myrtle Street in District 12. Alder Asad would have recused himself for this item, in addition to his recusal from tonight’s consent agenda, due to his involvement with the project.

Quorum was promptly lost at 5pm and the meeting adjourned.

July 16th, 2025

By Tori Cooper with Claude AI

Official Minutes

The Urban Design Commission convened on July 16, 2025, to address two items before them: (1) Nissan dealership signage proposal and (2) the Eastmorland Community Center and Housing development. There were no items moved to a consent agenda.

Rosen Nissan Signage Updates

Item two on tonight’s agenda focused on Legistar 88729: Comprehensive Design Review (CDR) for the Rosen Nissan dealership located at 2510 W Beltline Highway in District 14. The commission reviewed Rosen Nissan’s proposal for updates as part of the “new global Nissan brand image” initiative. The dealership, represented by Richard Coss at tonight’s meeting, seeks to modernize both exterior and interior elements to improve customer efficiency and provide quicker service. While this includes some building modifications, UDC’s role tonight is simply acting as an approving body on the wayfinding and building signage.

Coss presented plans for updated signage with a new dealership brand identification sign featuring a minimalistic design of the Nissan logo using the red, black, and white—uniform with other Nissan locations participating in the global brand refresh. Coss then reviewed the directional signage for wayfinding and exterior wall signage included in the proposal.

Signage overview provided by Rosen Nissan, demonstrating signs approved by Nissan’s Corporate offices

Staff Jessica Vaughn identified several areas where the proposal exceeds current code requirements, including Rosen Nissan’s request to update their 30 foot brand identifying sign, as well as the pillar-style signs that would be located throughout the property. Most notably, Staff Vaughn stated the Staff recommendation is to deny the proposal for the 30 foot sign. Currently, the City’s code only allows a maximum height of 13 foot signs and encourages pole-signs over block styles. Staff clarified that existing 30-foot signs were previously approved by Dane County when they were part of the Town of Madison, but in 2022 they were absorbed into the City of Madison. Since the municipal absorption, any sign changes require new approval through the current process. Currently, signs may receive updates to their face; however, body modifications to the upper portion and total replacements require conditional use approval.

Commissioner Bernau raised questions about the distinction between ground signs and pole signs, asking whether Nissan could modify the base of the design to meet code requirements. Staff Vaughn explained while this was technically possible, Nissan preferred the block-style signs, which align with current automotive industry trends. Overall, Staff and UDC agreed the design fit with the area and industry standards and were not a concern they should continue to focus on.

The discussion also addressed how ground topography and grading from the beltline might justify the proposed 30-foot height versus the standard 13-foot allowance. Staff indicated that additional information from Rosen Nissan would be necessary to demonstrate visibility issues caused by topography.

Based on feedback from Coss, the commission ultimately approved the signage proposal with modifications. While all wayfinding signage was given the go-ahead, Rosen Nissan was given two options for their brand identification sign: reduce the height to 13 feet in order to meet code requirements as part of a full replacement, or refresh the existing 30-foot sign face.

Eastmorland Community Center and Housing Development

UDC then shifted their focus to Legistar 87894: Planned Development at 3565 Tulane Avenue for the Eastmorland Community Center and Housing in District 15. With Commissioner Bernau recusing himself due to his involvement with the development team, Co-Chair Alder Asad oversaw this agenda item.

The development team presented their vision for addressing the shortage of working middle-class housing through a planned development based on city guidance provided over the past 3-4 years. The project aims to create a walkable, collaborative neighborhood environment.

Tyler Crook, representing the development team, showcased significant improvements to their site plan since it last came before UDC. This included parking reorganization so areas no longer project into the central plaza, making it more usable and central to the development, flexible space design to accommodate flexible uses such as farmers markets and food trucks, enhanced landscaping to incorporate significantly more greenery, and historic preservation with the inclusion of an old spire from the existing building, which will be converted into a sculpture to honor the original structure.

Site perspective comparison showing visual used in the informational presentation to UDC and the updated, current proposal

The design also includes several amenities to residents and community members—namely thirty-eight bike stalls distributed throughout the site, individual residential entries on the Ogen Street portion of the building, and a comprehensive lighting design. Crook took the opportunity to highlight the pole LED lights in parking areas, wall sconces, and rope LED lighting under plaza seating.

Commissioner Mbilinyi, an experienced practicing licensed architect, praised the development team for their thorough research and consideration. She noted the thoughtful approach to maximizing space usage while addressing critical community housing needs, stating this was clearly a well thought-out design and previous comments by UDC had been taken to heart. Although it was left unsaid, it was clear the UDC was proud of fellow Commissioner Bernau’s landscaping design choices.

Commissioner Bernau’s landscape planting plan

Alder Asad also acknowledged the project’s improvement from previous designs, but questioned the use of a white panel that appears unique to a section with six windows. While recognizing the overall progress, he felt this material choice seemed out of place with the rest of the design. Commissioner Mbilinyi agreed with the concern but understood the design intent to use white material for highlighting building height and providing spatial relief in the overall composition.

Building design renderings, which Alder Asad referenced when commenting about the unique white sections of the building (most notable in the top middle and direct middle panels of the image)

Before UDC voted, Alder Rutherford provided strong district-level support for the development, emphasizing that it targets a demographic in dire need of housing. They highlighted the project’s value in creating a walkable community with worship, shopping, and community amenities in a working-class area that needs both housing and community spaces. Alder Rutherford also spoke on a personal note, stating how difficult it has been for them recently in the search for housing not just in the city, but especially in their own district.

Despite the procedural challenge of having both the co-chair Alder Asad presenting (making him a non-voting member) and Commissioner Bernau recused, the commission achieved the necessary three-vote minimum for approval. The motion to recommend approval to the Plan Commission passed unanimously among eligible voting members.

June 25th, 2025

Urban Design Commission Denies Oversized Projecting Sign for Whitney Way Development

By Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

The Urban Design Commission held a focused meeting to review signage plans for the residential development at 655-667 S Whitney Way, ultimately denying one component of the proposal due to size restrictions.

Wayfinding Signage Proposal

The evening’s meeting centered entirely around Legistar 88670: Comprehensive Design Review for Signage for a development at 655-667 South Whitney Way/601, 625, 649 Sand Pearl Lane located in District 11.

Developers Mary Beth and Danny presented their wayfinding signage plan for the Whitney Way buildings, designed to help residents, guests, and contractors navigate the property more easily. The signage proposal was part of a larger project to improve identification and navigation throughout the development.

City Staff member Jessica Vaughn outlined the city’s signage requirements, noting that exceptions may be granted for identification purposes in special circumstances. These exceptions typically apply to skyscrapers, buildings with significant setbacks, or signs along busy roads where higher traffic speeds limit visibility.

The primary issue centered on a proposed 31.55 square foot projecting sign. Staff Vaughn expressed concerns that this sign did not meet the requirements established by city zoning codes and questioned its necessity for the development.

Commissioner Klehr sought clarification about which buildings constituted the “West Bend” development, with staff confirming that only the 655-667 addresses were included in this designation.

Commissioner Bernau inquired about the modification process, which allows developers to request up to 50% more than standard height, size, and setback requirements for signage; however, this would require a separate application and approval from the Urban Design Commission.

Commissioner Asad observed that obtaining building approval seemed easier than securing signage approval, prompting discussion about the city’s flexibility in evaluating appropriateness. Matt Tucker explained that the commission was specifically convened to review the projecting sign, as all other proposed signs were compliant.

Tucker emphasized that approval for a 32 square foot projecting sign was unlikely based on existing code, particularly given the building’s location and the speed limit on S Whitney Way, which would make signs above 18 square feet inappropriate.

When Commissioner Graham asked about the size selection, representatives from Ryan Signs explained their methodology. They conducted site visits with developers and drove by the location multiple times, determining that a 12-foot sign was difficult to see from the street. The team performed various exercises to simulate how applicants, visitors, and others would view the signage.

Both Jessica Vaughn and the commission acknowledged that while the 12-foot sign appeared undersized relative to the building, the proposed 31.55 square foot sign exceeded code requirements.

The commission clarified that they had no issues with the design or placement of the projecting sign—only its size. Tucker suggested that rather than an outright denial, the city should provide specific reasons for rejection and allow the developer to return with a new proposal and application.

The other signs in the proposal were deemed compliant and required only standard permits. The projecting sign was the sole item requiring denial.

A motion to deny the oversized projecting sign was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.

Commission Changes

Following the agenda’s conclusion, Commissioner Harry Graham announced his resignation and recused himself from the remainder of the meeting’s voting.

The commission also conducted its biennial chair elections, held during odd years in June. Commissioner Bernau was nominated and selected as chair for another term, while Commissioner McLean was nominated and chosen as vice chair.

May 28th, 2025

By Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

The Urban Design Commission convened May 28th for a rather entertaining and lengthy meeting, despite moving multiple items to the consent agenda and only having three main areas of focus. The meeting began with the introduction of Nick Hellrood, UDC’s newest member. Commissioner Hellrood is a student at UW-Madison studying Landscape Architecture while interning at Psyche Design. Once the introduction concluded, Staff transitioned the meeting to their usual agenda overview.

Two items were moved to the Consent Agenda and passed unanimously:

Legistar 88015: Signage Exception for 102 E Rusk Avenue located in District 14.

Legistar 88143: Amending section 31.041 of the Madison General Ordinances, Sign Permits and Fees, to create a new application fee and deadlines for processing sign permit applications. UDC is an Advisory Body to the Common Council.

It is worth noting 102 East Rusk Avenue, the subject of Legistar 88015, is on an elevation that does not qualify for signage as it is not located on a street, nor is it associated with a parking area tied to the building. Staff supported the request because there is no current signage identifying the business that may be approached from the John Nolan Drive access point, which UDC ultimately agreed with.

Mixed-Use Development on University Avenue at Meadow Lane

Moving on, UDC shifted their focus to Legistar 86816: New mixed-use building in UUD 6, located at 3535-3553 University Avenue and 733-737 North Meadow Lane in District 5. UDC is an approving body on this request and Commissioner Asad recused himself from the item due to his involvement with the project.

Multiple members of the design team presented, starting with Pat Terry from JLA Architects. Terry gave a plan overview for the five-story building, stating plans included 246 residential units, rooftop amenities such as a pool and community room, as well as two levels of below-grade parking. Terry also mentioned two current parking areas, which have plans for being combined in order to meet zoning code requirements. Another member of the development team chimed in to remind UDC of a smaller project that was approved last year, but they took what was approved and extended it to the west using the same architectural language.

Formerly approved project and new/updated proposal renderings

Andrew Gifford with JSD then shifted the presentation’s focus to more technical aspects of the project, informing the Commission that they have adjusted their plans to move sanitary and storm sewers around the building, whereas they were previously designed to be to the west, but have now been moved to the east side of the building. Gifford also notes the addition of more landscaping—including more shade plants, trees, and shrub buffers for patio areas.

A fourth member of the development team clarified interior building plans, stating levels 2 through 4 are residential spaces with one- and two-bedroom options. The first floor has included commercial space with an outdoor patio, which is an included amenity for businesses renting the space. The developer also added that after the last informational meeting with UDC, the building was redesigned to include more building breaks using facade gaps, or hyphens, as well as recessed upper floors and material changes.

Kate, a local resident, along with several neighbors, submitted written concerns regarding the impacts the development would have on traffic. While she recognized this was outside of UDC’s purview, she wanted to make UDC aware their group has been sending out concerns to the various commissions, committees, and units that would be involved in the approval process. Specifically, they are requesting things such as the consideration of a right turn only onto University Ave, as well as other traffic calming measures such as bump-outs, roundabouts, and stop signs.

Commissioner Bernau asked if developers were able to move the building back to the south at all, as mentioned in their previous critique when this originally came before UDC. The development team said no, but walked UDC through ways they have tried to offer points of relief in the building in order to make the building less daunting to pedestrians. This included adding depth and breaks—namely the hyphens—as well as offering more shrubbery and green spaces to give it a more comforting feel.

Commissioner Bernau also referred back to the fencing materials discussed in the previous informational meeting, asking about the grading and topography, in addition to the materials that would be used. The development team responded by focusing on the retaining wall, which is planned to be comprised of wooden lag. It will then be covered by another, more decorative fence along Bruce Court to add to curb appeal. On the west, they have a low, modular block retaining wall to aid in the grade change.

Another member of the development team chimed in to clarify that different zoning requires privacy fences. They plan to install a six-foot, wood-type privacy fence to meet that requirement and would be placed along the zoning change line. Commissioner Klehr asked for clarification on the plan design, with the developer noting the “break” in the fence she sees is a transformer box for electrical flow. Commissioner Klehr also asked about an access point between University Ave and Bruce Court, but developers said this idea was shot down during neighborhood meetings, as most residents did not want the extra traffic that would be brought in.

Commissioner McLean asked for more information about the windows, wanting to know if there is any relief in the frame of the glass or any type of framing. The development team stated the design calls for a thin brick veneer, but they have included panels below the windows to give the building more depth. They have not picked a manufacturer yet for the windows, but they aim to get something that will articulate the brick and offer relief, rather than making it into a flat facade. All windows will be operable, double hung designs. Commissioner Klehr later asked about the glazing on the lower windows, stating she believed the potential glare into traffic and neighboring buildings/residences warranted the issue being addressed.

Staff believed initial approval would be acceptable in this case and that any concerns brought up by UDC tonight could be addressed at later meetings, rather than denying the item tonight and bringing it back with a more lengthy discussion later. Initial approval would mean only coming back before the Commission to address concerns later, which would make this a much more efficient process.

Commissioner Graham moved to approve, with conditions regarding window glazing, revisions on lighting, and access points in the fence, as well as the fencing material and security. The motion passed.

Facade Alterations on Gilman Street

Moving on to the evening’s hottest topic, the Commission reviewed Legistar 88343: Major facade alterations at 430 W Gilman Street, located in the Downtown Core District (District 2), where they acted as an approving body.

The applicant team seemed to be out of their depth, although they appeared to be providing as much information as they could on the proposal. Essentially, the requesting body wanted to change the location’s color to make the building more uniform with surrounding buildings, referring to the structures immediately next to the site and The Hub apartments, as well as fight the never-ending slew of graffiti the building obtains. The building has already been painted previously without approval, as well as had tiling installed on the front facade, but it was unclear when and what products were used.

Building facade alterations on Gilman Street

The applicants have contacted several pressure washing companies to see about removing the current paint, but no one would touch it. Most companies said to either get approval from the City for repainting, or to get approval for exterior changes in the event they moved forward with pressure washing and needed to repair the structure. The requesting team later clarified that the companies would not be able to water- or sand-blast due to damage concerns, as well as the fact the building was built prior to 1978.

When contacting painting companies, the applicant team was able to find one that would agree to complete the job, despite the tricky tile that was previously added to the front of the facade. They were also able to find a gray that matched the neighborhood’s aesthetic; however, they quickly came to the understanding they had been misinformed by the building landlord and would need to seek UDC approval prior to proceeding.

Commissioner Mbilinyi asked for clarification from the requestors’ previous statements on the landlord claiming there was no zoning approval needed for the project. UDC had concern over the false statements, but was glad to see this item had in fact made it before the Commission. The requestors asked for recommendations on companies to help complete their project. UDC is not able to recommend companies, but was able to refer them to other applicants who had successfully completed projects after gaining approval from the City in the past.

Commissioner McLean was able to provide some guidance on paint, explaining how damaging paint is to brick and mortar structures like this. As part of his explanation, he went over how paint prevents porous brick from breathing and traps moisture—leaving damage that often cannot be seen until it is too late. Commissioner McLean emphasized the significance of the damage and this proposal coming before UDC, as this is not only an aesthetic issue, but can impact the building’s structural integrity. Commissioner Mbilinyi echoed McLean’s concerns over structural integrity, again drawing the attention back to the landlord’s false statements about the approval process and building code before making a statement that the architects should also have known better.

Commissioner Bernau then redirected, essentially stating how they got here is not as significant as what UDC does moving forward. This led Commissioner Graham to propose stain as an alternative to re-painting before UDC transitioned into discussing suitable movements and action on the item.

City Staff Tuttle mentioned that, had the landlord been aware of programs offered by the City, this site may have been eligible for graffiti removal; however, now that the building had been painted, those grants do not cover paint removal. The building is now in a situation where they will have to continue to paint over the graffiti that gets added to the building over the paint as it is now considered property management costs.

This led to a somewhat argumentative discussion between Commissioners, where they bickered over what falls under their prerogative, as well as where exactly this building’s unique situation falls on UDC’s approval spectrum. Ultimately, nothing of substance came from this brief break-out, but it was mentioned that UDC is able to approve or deny the use of specific materials or colors.

Commissioner McLean went back to the staining option, adamantly arguing that older buildings should not be painted due to the concerns over damage and impact on structural integrity. Commissioner Klehr then joined the bickering a bit late, but made her argument relevant to the discussion, stating brick should never be painted. Commissioner Klehr referenced a tattoo shop on University Avenue who painted their sign on masonry some years back and an auto body shop who requested to add stripes to the top of their brick building—both of which were vehemently denied by UDC when most of the current members were not sitting on the Commission (aside from Commissioners Asad and Klehr).

Overall, there was quite a bit of confusion between UDC and the requestors, as there were several pieces of key information missing, the requestors did not seem to be experts on the project, and UDC continually bickered back and forth over what should be done moving forward as they questioned the situation.

Commissioner Asad asked if UDC was ready for a motion; however, Commissioner Mbilinyi brought up concern over how much time was spent on paint, without addressing issues surrounding the tiles. Staff Vaughn quickly stepped in to redirect the conversation back to Commissioner Asad’s motion, before admitting “this is a big one… this is a little tricky, because our motion is going to treat this like it hasn’t been done even though it has been.”

Staff Vaughn stated their suggestion would be a motion to deny in order to have the previous paint removed, but it was up to UDC if they wanted to focus on approving further painting, staining, or similar facade alterations once the paint is removed. Commissioner Bernau disagreed with approving future projects and Commissioner Asad concurred—a first for the night between the two. UDC concluded that the requestors needed to come up with a plan on their own and come back to the Commission with a new, comprehensive design package. Staff Vaughn agreed “that’s perfect” but that all other design considerations would need to return to UDC for approval.

Ultimately, the application was denied. The requestors will be required to remove the current paint and apply at a later date with a full design package. Alder Mayor thanked the requestors for their commitment to fighting graffiti and improving the building. Commissioner Mbilinyi echoed the sentiment, adding she understood the difficulties of the requestors not only being new to Madison, but also not being native English speakers—ultimately encouraging them to keep advocating for their building.

Dane County Sustainability Campus

The final item of the night was Legistar 88296: a public project set for 7103 Millpond Road/4402 Brandt Road to accommodate the new Dane County Sustainability Campus in District 16. UDC acted as an approving body for this item.

John Welch presented first for the development team, reviewing plans for a new landfill and sustainability campus on a site that was purchased from the eastern portion of the Yahara Hills Golf Course two years ago. Welch explained the plans include critical infrastructure such as scale building and maintenance shop, as well as an administrative and public education building.

Map of proposed layout for the new Dane County Sustainability Campus

Austin Conrad, the project manager, spoke next. Conrad showed UDC the site’s location, which would be across the beltline from the current landfill. While the development will be separate from the landfill, the project is directly related. He also went over traffic plans, as they have spent a considerable amount of time evaluating the safety of the direction and flow.

Another member from the development team went over their landscape approach, stating they wanted to focus their planting design to be “low-input to make it easier to maintain by staff.” They highlighted the use of several native plants, the inclusion of shrubs and dense evergreens, in addition to a significant number of trees to provide shade and soften the location’s appearance. He then went over plaza and patio space, which will have flex-use throughout the year for their trash lab, general use, public education, and more.

Landscaping plans for the new Dane County Sustainability Campus’s Main Building

The development team continued by reviewing the main building’s layout, highlighting the spaces intended for educational programs. Building plans include lobby spaces, a community room, and educational classrooms. The rest of the building is meant for administrative services, with the second floor consisting of changing rooms, offices, and workspace. Developers also noted there is a screen wall included on the rendering, which provides some respite for machines and vehicles that need to be regularly stored outside of the building.

Alec Kendry then went over the plans for the maintenance shop, which will have a uniform roof, but multiple bays with varying garage door sizes to accommodate specific equipment. Kendry also pointed out a second structure located behind the shop, which will act as a sort of carport for vehicles not currently being serviced. Returning to the shop’s design, the roof will be sloped to the south in order to utilize solar power panels. He also mentioned the windows on the garage doors will be above eye level, indicating it was more of an aesthetic choice than utility. Commissioner Asad later suggested looking at gutter placements, but overall liked the plans.

Finally, the development team moved on to the scale building, which includes a 270 degree window view, so operators can easily identify vehicles coming to use the weigh station.

Commissioner Mbilinyi questioned the development team on their material and color choice for the main building—stating there was no articulation in the design. She thought the scale building was “beautiful” but did not think the main building’s design met the standards set by its smaller counterpart. Commissioner Mbilinyi’s opinion was that there was too much blocking, which led her to suggest a base or some other sort of respite to articulate the building. She reassured the developers the main building was also “beautiful,” but thought it could be improved to match the level of the scale building.

Rendering of the Scale Building for the Campus’s Weigh Station

Rendering of the Main Building to be used for administration and education

Commissioner Klehr agreed the buildings are “handsome” but questioned sustainability measures, noting how most newer developments of this scale are incorporating more eco-friendly measures. The developers responded by stating they are looking at using all recyclable materials, mentioned again their desire to include solar panels, and were even open to using already recycled materials when next asked by Commissioner Bernau.

Commissioner Bernau immediately clarified his desire to see something bold and impactful, not just token items. The developer assured him they plan on using recycled concrete in certain, non-structural sections and are open to incorporating additional recycled materials where possible.

In the end, UDC approved the application.

A Farewell to a Member of the “Skeleton Crew”

Ending the evening’s long meeting, Commissioner Graham announced his plans to step down at the end of June, citing a new job and his hope that someone who can dedicate the proper amount of time to the Commission that it deserves will fill his spot.

May 7, 2025

by Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

Wednesday, May 7th had a concise meeting after moving two of the three agenda items to the consent agenda, for both of which UDC was the approving body. The only topic up for discussion focused on updates to a previously approved plan for a development on East Washington Avenue. For the second meeting in a row, there was electrical feedback at the start of the meeting which made it difficult to understand what was being said—namely Commissioner Asad’s recusal from the evening’s public hearing item. Staff noted they would reach out to IT to resolve the issue ahead of UDC’s next meeting.

Updates to an Already Approved Proposal

On to the evening’s main course, the Commission heard from JLA Architects regarding Legistar 87954, requesting alterations to a previously approved mixed-use building in Urban Design District 8, which will be located at 702 East Washington Avenue in District 6.

Updated Building Rendering Showing New and Improved Design Proposal

The familiar Troy Jacoby presented for JLA after additional technical difficulties joining the Zoom meeting. The City initially sent the developer team a link to the wrong meeting and had to send a new one. Even then, there were issues with Jacoby not receiving the email and needing to have a fellow JLA member forward the updated link to him in order to join and present.

Nevertheless, Jacoby hit the ground running, catching the UDC up on updates JLA has been making to the design over the past year since they were last before the Commission.

Comparison of previously approved proposal and updated design

Jacoby noted the two story plinth “with a really activated street front” is largely unchanged; however, there are reduced percentage openings on the upper half due to the unit layouts. The smaller windows are meant to accommodate building performance, energy efficiency, and to offer less restrictive options for residents’ furniture layouts.

Looking specifically at the exterior design, JLA has opted for railings instead of dividers on the balconies, which allows more natural lighting into the units. There is also increased texture, additional colors, and overall more personality on both the north- and south-facing sides of the structure. Jacoby also notes a change to a “totally secured parking deck” with no openings, unlike previous design which left vehicles and a portion of the structure exposed to the elements. In the same vein as parking, the developer has introduced loading a dock on back elevation for service deliveries into building.

Side view rendering comparing original, approved design and updated proposal

Looking at the side views, Jacoby assured the Commission JLA would still be using metal panels, but stated there were changes in the dimensions. For one, recessed balconies were reduced to put that square footage back into the units and aid in the utilization of natural lighting in the units. Recessed lighting was also added for increased nighttime visibility without hindering the overall design and building functionality.

There were also changes made along the Blount street facade, where JLA has introduced color-matching louvers to the design. Although they must keep the service doors for MG&E, they worked to increase the artwork size, as well as decided to frame it with metal sheeting to add emphasis.

Infographic highlighting changed made in the proposal, noted by the red dashes

Commissioner Klehr asked about the durability of the metal and JLA’s experience working with the material. Jacoby reassured the UDC by stating they were familiar with the materials in the proposal and have recently done a project on Regent Street which used one of the two proposed metal options—specifically the Centria siding. While they had not worked with their second option, Muza, the only difference would be the flatness. JLA proposed two options due to concerns over recently imposed tariffs, which could cause them to not only run into budget issues, but supply chain troubles as well.

Commissioner Klehr seemed pleased with Jacoby’s ready response, but quickly moved on to question the “eyebrow” created by the thicker canopy over the storefronts, asking why JLA made this change. The developers pointed out how the garage is situated directly above the store fronts and explains concerns over vehicles tracking in rainwater or bringing snow into the parking structure. The increased canopy volume not only offers more surface area for run-off, but provides additional support for the retail area windows.

In a turn of events, and Commissioner Klehr having enjoyed a light-hearted interrogation, she noted landscape changes. Although she ultimately referred the landscaping critiques to Bernau, she mentioned an appreciation for going through the pains of making changes in order to accommodate the building needs. Right on cue, Commissioner Bernau jumped in, but threw another UDC curveball by stating he thought “the planters and railings are actually nicer in the new proposal.” Commissioner Bernau also voiced his appreciation for the artwork and how it interfaced with the streetscape, despite the interruption by the garage doors and loading dock.

As the Commission moved to approve, Staff Vaugh noted that if approved as-is, both Muza and Centria metal options would be approved—meaning JLA could use whichever they decided to go with in the end. This led Commissioner McLean to jump in, stating he agreed with using Muza if possible, but Centria would be acceptable if they needed to go that route. The Commissioners agreed and the motion passed unanimously.

Nasty Grahams to the Urban Design Commission

As part of their business by members, Commissioner Klehr asked how the UDC should be responding to emails critiquing their meetings and decisions. There was also concern over personal email information, such as emails and phone numbers, being shared outside of the Commission—which would make it easier for UDC members to be contacted through personal accounts, rather than Madisonians reaching out through official channels.

While the UDC ultimately decided individual members of the Commission should not reach out, it was clear there was one particular email that had raised concern. While information regarding the specifics was not shared, it was clear to those tuning in to the evening’s meeting there was some tomfoolery afoot. While this author cannot speak for Madison n Councilytics, she can say on a personal note she thinks UDC should spill the tea.

March 5, 2025

by Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

Urban Design Commission discussed two new proposals with developers, both located on East Washington Avenue. Before getting into the thick of things, the Commission passed one item from their consent agenda:

Legistar 87165: Comprehensive Design Review for Signage in an Urban Design District (UDD) for a property located at 849 E Washington Avenue and 10 S Paterson Street in District 6.

3361-3375 East Washington Avenue

Matthew Tills, with the proposal’s developer JSD, previewed their plans for a 153 unit apartment building at the corner of North Fair Oaks Avenue and East Washington Avenue. The building was not up for any official approval. The proposal is to develop a new mixed-use building in Urban Design District 5, located in District 12 Legistar 87242. The property is currently broken up into seven parcels, made up of two single-family homes and a small strip mall–which JSD proposes replacing with a single mixed-use building. After meeting with neighbors, JSD has included more parking in the plans. It would have a total of 142 parking spots. The parking lot would allow for entry and exit from both directions on Fair Oaks, but would only allow for right-hand entry from and right-hand exit onto East Wash in order to comply with current traffic flow. The lot is also being designed to accommodate parking for a proposed commercial space. The plan also includes a courtyard, which provides additional green space to tenants and private entry patios with some green space in front of each ground-level unit to indicate private use. Tills later mentioned the possibility of including railing on patios to further indicate the spaces as private to tenants and discourage loitering from members of the public who may be waiting for a bus. This would be in addition to the developers incorporating as much greenery to the landscape as possible, including a significant number of shrubbery, plants, and trees.

Commissioner Klehr, who was the most vocal about accessibility and planning for the project, noted she can “appreciate [the] sophistication and color” the developer is proposing; however, she brought up concerns over the transition from a commercial to residential area. She then questioned why JSD is not stepping down the height of this development where it is adjacent to low density residential, similar to their previous work with the Rise Development. While Tills did not provide a direct answer, he did reassure the Commission JSD would be willing to step the building down if it would be critical to the project’s approval. While Klehr agreed the mixed-use space was in accordance with the North East Plan, she expressed hopes for more commercial space in order to make the area more walkable for residents. Klehr additionally requested further consideration on JSD’s part of how the color scheme would impact lighting in the area–specifically how the colors would either absorb or throw light that hits the building and impact the transition into a residential area from a high-traffic area.

(image)

Commissioner Klehr also referenced the space at the intersection of Fair Oaks and East Wash that would be used by pedestrians utilizing the nearby BRT stop. Klehr requested consideration for more maneuverability, as she expects higher traffic on that corner for public transportation users. Tills was amenable to the change, stating the nearby BRT stop was critical in JSD’s plans and how it is “symbiotic for urban transport.” This later brought into question how the parking area would accommodate pedestrians using it as a shortcut between the two streets. In response to further questioning by Commissioner Klehr, Tills confirmed that City Traffic Engineering has been involved with the project as part of a meeting held with neighbors at the end of January. Tills said they are still working on the exact parking layout, but want it to be safe for pedestrian use while maximizing usability for the commercial spaces which will make up the lower level of the project. Alder Rummel chimed in to question additional parking in the area, namely street parking availability. Tills informed the Commission there is not immediate street parking next to the development site, but there is available street parking further south on Fair Oaks.

Before bringing the discussion to a close, Commissioners Graham and Mbilinyi advocated for additional public and private spaces on the exterior of the building. Commissioner Mbilinyi asked for further consideration of an expanded patio area, while Commissioner Graham drew specific attention to the plan’s inclusion of patios with step downs on the East Wash side, but not the Fair Oaks facing portion of the building. Tills confirmed Commissioner Graham’s suspicion the site’s topography was a factor; however, Tills noted JSD was working with civil engineering to explore the possibility of either individual or shared patio steps to allow for private or semi-private entry on the Fair Oaks side.

501 E Washington Avenue

Another development proposal was for a parcel located between East Washington Avenue, South Blair Street, and South Franklin Street. Steven Rosemitch, from JLA Architecture, previewed the design plan for the 223 unit residential building, which is set to be located in Urban Design District 4, in District 6 Legistar 87243. It was not up for any official approval. Rosemitch specifically highlighted how JLA would be addressing specific aspects of the proposed development’s location and topography. For one, there is a considerable grade change on South Blair. Due to this, JLA has decided to adjust their plan to have the building’s lobby on South Franklin so as to promote accessibility and avoid sending traffic onto East Wash. To aid in the curb appeal of the South Blair side, JLA included plinth in their design in addition to the strong masonry base, which will be used to add contrasting greenery to the area. Secondly, the building has been designed to frame the capital as you come up East Wash—promoting the view and staying compliant with City height ordinances while maximizing residential space in a high-housing-need area. Additionally, parking would be included under the building. Commissioner Bernau later questioned the exact location and if the windows seen on the lower level would look into a garage, to which Rosemitch clarified parking would be below the window line (seen in figure 3), underground.

(image)

Commissioners were skeptical of the proposed design and how it fit into the area. Commissioner Bernau questioned Rosemitch on zoning requirements regarding transitioning down the South Franklin side of the building into a historic district. Rosemitch said he was not aware of any, with Staff member Jessica Vaughn clarifying the site is zoned as Urban Mixed Used (U-MX) and there are no requirements for zoning transitioning into the First Settlement historic district. This brought further scrutiny from the Commission, as several other members brought up design context in regard to the much smaller historic buildings and homes adjacent to the parcel. Commissioner Mbilinyi jumped in to draw attention to how overbearing the building plans appear in comparison to others in the area, which was echoed by Alder Rummel who advocated for toning the building down. Commissioner Bernau additionally argued the need to consider the smaller structures in the First Settlement—impacting the Urban Design Commission’s judgement of scale and size of the proposal when thinking about how the development fits into this neighborhood, as those historic buildings are likely to remain for a considerable amount of time. Alder Rummel agreed, noting historic landmarks take legal precedence. Vaughn then reminded the Commission they will be both an approving and advisory body on this matter, with sensitivity of context as well as compatibility needing to be considered moving forward. Vaughn again referenced current zoning as U-MX, so the development will likely require conditional use approval from the Plan Commission with regard to context and sustained aesthetic desirability.

(image)

Multiple members of the commission also expressed interest in JLA offering a design that included two more modest buildings, rather than a large, single structure. Commissioner Klehr commented that although she agreed, she liked that the design “snaked around” to create a courtyard space. This led to Commissioner Mbilinyi noting how small the proposed courtyard appears, with Commissioner Bernau asking for clarification on the purpose of such a narrow courtyard on the interior of the design. Rosemitch informed the Commission the original design had the courtyard facing East Wash; however, JLA determined the back end of the building would make better use of the space. The updated design would allow for more facade space, as well as increased sunlight to otherwise interior units—ultimately aiding in breaking down massing of the building. Rosemitch also noted the original design included more balconies, but after a neighborhood meeting JLA reduced balcony sizes and recessed their settings to increase courtyard space.

(image)

All in all, while the Commission like certain aspects of the design, just about every compliment was followed with a “but.” Bernau commended the inclusion of plinths in the design, but stated this area is not well suited for lawn, pushing for JLA to consider perennial and shrubs instead. Commissioner Mbilinyi said vertical massing was appropriate, but was not pleased by the horizontal aspects. JLA boasted their color and material choice to help break elevations and create shadow lines—only for Alder Rummel to flatly state she does not think the material is appropriate for the area and the colors are too dark, but she did think the corner design was strong. Staff commented that the developer is tasked with bridging context between the East Wash developments and the First Settlement on South Franklin as they have two very different profiles and aesthetics. This was highlighted in the Staff Report, which noted the challenge of transitioning between two contrasting areas and drawing into question which design takes priority while establishing a way to make the designs coalesce. As a middle ground proposal, Staff suggested the development look like multiple buildings, similar to their previous Core Space Development between East Gorham Street, South Broom Street, and East Johnson Street.

February 19, 2025

by Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

The Urban Design Committee convened February 19th to unanimously pass the evening’s consent agenda and review two additional items: a new office-warehouse building proposal in District 16 and plans for the 7 Brew coffee application slated for District 3.

5001 Femrite Drive

A new office building is proposed for the corner of Femrite Drive and Dairy Drive on Madison’s east side, sitting in Urban Design District 1 of District 16 Legistar 86819. According to WYSER Engineering, the plan includes demolishing nearby buildings to make way for the office-warehouse combo–with City Staff Jessica Vaughn noting there is an application on file to demolish multiple single-family homes in order to make way for stormwater drainage and additional parking. WYSER’s building design includes pre-cast concrete, which is common for the area; however, they claim to be adding more color than similar buildings by using sections that have been painted blue. This would be in addition to two variations of gray with some nebulous white accents.

(image)

The commission immediately questioned WYSER’s design choices–most notably the lack of texture and shadows, in addition to the odd drops in sectioning that corresponded with the site’s topography. Commissioner Klehr asked the developer why the roofline contained step-ups, to which the developer responded by claiming WYSER aims to reduce the height from the blue to gray areas of the exterior in order to make shipping then installing the painted sections easier. Later, when Klehr asked about the lowest elevated corner, the developer stated the tiers were in lieu of sloping to allow for rainwater runoff. The inconsistency somewhat annoyed Commissioner Klehr, with her going so far as to state her opinion that WYSER should be basing their design off of something in the area, such as the neighboring fire station; furthermore, she argued the design looked “sloppy” and “odd, rather than purposeful.”

Commissioner Asad’s statements echoed a similar sentiment, drawing attention the the “weird steps” in the plan. Asad asserted that a slope of roughly six to twelve inches did not necessitate such drastic designs for steps surrounding sections of the building. Overall, the commission believed WYSER should simply get rid of them. Commissioner Asad further inquired into WYSER’s design choices by questioning the texturing of the building. As it stands now, the developer has chosen to stick with a smooth concrete rather that something more substantial. While Commissioner Asad was pleased with the inclusion of the nebulous white coping, he found the smooth texture lacking in substance. Ultimately, Commissioner Asad believed the pre-cast could be more creative and bring some life to the area and encouraged the developer to be more creative with their design.

Alder Rummel’s requested a rendering showing the surrounding buildings to establish context as well as giving input on the addition of canopies over the doors on the eastern side of the building. Commissioner Bernau spoke to a similar sentiment, pushing for changes in texture in order to establish more of a base rather than having a tall concrete slabs emerging from the ground.

While Commissioner Graham offered some reprieve by noting WYSER’s plan aligns with the Urban Development District as far as the parking lot proposal, Commissioner Bernau was quick to jump in again and note it is not in an ideal location considering the cross section of the site’s location. Commissioner Bernau additionally urged WYSER to consider vision triangles with regard to the parking area–especially when considering the sidewalk crossing.

Commissioner Bernau further dug into WYSER’s landscaping plans. For one, the current proposal includes day lilies on the north side of the building in what will be a heavily shaded area. Being a sun-loving pant, these will need to be relocated in the plan. In addition to plant placement, Commissioner Bernau voiced disappointment in the density of the proposed plants. According to the Commissioner, although the shrubs are spread out the amount is fine; however, WYSER should be planting 75% more perennials to establish the parcel. Bernau also noted the omission of plants that will be used to fill the bio retentions, clarifying for the developer these will need to include a specific mix of native plants and cannot be filled with lawn. Lastly, WYSER’s proposal included a dyed brown mulch. Keeping consistent with eco-awareness, Commissioner Bernau advocated for the use of naturally colored wood mulch, rather than something with dyes that could wash out and be absorbed into the land. WYSER did mention they are working with the Forestry Department to better establish the landscape and plants.

(image)

Ultimately, the commission voted to have WYSER come back at a later date with a revised design based on their feedback from this evening’s meeting.

7 Brew Coffee

For their second major item of the night, the Commission reviewed design plans for the new two-story 7 Brew drive-through proposed for 3915 Lien Road in Urban Design District 5, located in District 3 Legistar 86494. This is in a TOD overlay zoning district and so requires a 2-story design. While 7 Brew locations are typically a modular design, the developer drew attention the obstacles they have been facing with regard to the district’s building codes and claimed it compromised the overall design. While the coffee vendor would utilize a system where employees take orders on iPads directly from drive-through customers rather than speakers, the requirements for the second floor canopy has become a challenge. According to Staff Member Vaughn, ordinances require the second floor to provide at least 75% of the amount of space as the ground floor. Due to this, the developer has come up with a design that includes a shipping container, with a blue ribboning utilized to separate the lower section’s masonry look from the upper section’s metal composure. The shipping container would be further supported by three black beams that separate lanes one and two of the drive through and are designed to mount menus onto. Additionally, the container canopy is planned to have warmers to offer some reprieve for employees during the harsh Wisconsin winters–similar to what Madisonians have seen at both the east and west side Chick-fil-A locations and BRT stations.

(image)

Alder Rummel later questioned Staff regarding the drive through, wanting to know why 7 Brew must have such a large upper portion to the coffee shop, versus a smaller upstairs and a parapet over the drive through. Staff reiterated the 75% rule for a second floor to comply with district requirements and ordinances, indicating this is where the idea for the blue ribbon came from in order to help ease the transition from the lower imitation-masonry to the upper shipping container. Alder Rummel voiced her displeasure with the ordinance, with which City Staff Vaughn agreed as it had caused the developers to return to the drawing board several times and start from scratch in order to remain compliant with district requirements.

Alder Rummel was not the only commissioner unimpressed with the design. At one point, Commissioner Brenau compared it to a construction workshop, telling everyone to “just Google ‘elevated job trailer.’” Even Commissioner Asad stated “the concept is modern, but the application is brutalist.” The developer strongly disagreed, stating it would be considered monolithic as they have worked to establish rhythm in the design. Asad further argued his point before somewhat conceding by saying that this is perhaps a matter of opinion. All in all, Commissioner Asad thought the design was a “cool concept that could really work,” but thought the rendering needed additional review for the application of materials. The development team eagerly attempted to gather more input from the Commissioner, but was met with Asad stating he was “not going to design it right now;” however, he did offer ideas such as a darker base, redesigning the blue ribbon, or doing something different with the black beams which currently blend in and get eaten by the shadows.

(image)

Commissioner Asad further clarified his concern was not necessarily about adding more material, but examining how the materials themselves are being applied within the design. Noting the rendering quality may be impacting his opinion, the Commissioner voiced the need for more texture or visual attachment to bring life to the design with additional details. Commissioner Asad additionally stated just because it is a more modern, modular design, does not mean windows are the best approach to add life to the building. Alder Rummel and Commissioner Klehr agreed, noting the building lacked harmony, with Klehr drawing attention to one of the renderings appearing to include three different window sizes: smaller square windows on the shipping container, narrow rectangular widow on the upper masonry section, and wider rectangular windows on the lower portion. The developer clarified this was an error in the rendering, as there should only be two window size–one rectangular size for the masonry section and one square size for the shipping container’s windows. The developer additionally clarified the windows planned for the masonry sections would be in-set to add depth to the design and noted the masonry sections are planned to be made up of imitation panels rather than actual brick.

The question of parking and accessibility was then brought up by multiple Commision members. The City requires the site to provide 3.75 parking spaces, which the developers fully provide by including three regular spaces and one ADA reserved stall. This is in additional to conversations with neighboring properties, who have tentatively agreed to share additional parking to serve as overflow for employees and customers. Commissioner Bernau then asked why the developers did not provide more green space by having the initial passthrough being as one or two lanes that open up to the full three, which paired well with Alder Rummel questioning why to second story was designed to be perpendicular to the lower portion. The developers and City Staff jointly clarified that City Engineering advised on three individual lanes to avoid delivery trucks from blocking customers’ access. As for the perpendicular design, Emergency Vehicles would not fit under the drive through canopy. This prompted the developers to come up with a design that would allow emergency vehicles to gain better, more immediate access to the front doors in case they needed to get inside the building. While the 7 Brew will not be publicly accessible, there is still a need for access in case an employee gets hurt or has an emergency. It also allows better fire truck access in the event they need to respond to a call at the location.

(image)

This prompted Commissioner Graham to ask for the width of each of the lanes, which the developers provided as being 14.5” for Lane 1, 15” for Lane 2, and 16” for Lane 3. Lane three is intentionally wider to allow room for delivery trucks to maneuver through the curve without interfering with customers or potentially brushing up against the building. Commissioner Graham then redirected the conversation to accessibility by requesting clarification on the retention wall located along the East Washington Avenue side of the building. The developers stated the retention wall is roughly three feet high, and although there is an access ramp, pedestrians will still be directed around the neighboring gas station due to the slope of the site. The developers also noted an existing ditch and swale on the north side of the curb, which is due to the topography. City Staff noted that adding an additional pathway might be difficult due to the limited space, but suggested the possibility of opening the ramp up at an earlier point may aid in accessibility–especially when it comes to wheelchair users–and could help alleviate pressure the current design puts on pedestrians to walk across areas designated for cars.

Commissioner Bernau also pointed out the wave-type bike rack used in WYSER’s proposal is not on the City’s list of approved styles and instructed the developers to make sure they are using allowable equipment. Bernau, echoed by Commissioner Graham, further advocated an increase in pedestrian amenities. Alder Rummel questioned where the nearest BRT stop is located in relation to the site, with other members mentioning there is a stop just down the block in front of the east side Hyvee. This furthered the Commission’s commitment to pushing for increased pedestrian access, with Alder Rummel going so far as to suggest an outdoor patio that could be used both by pedestrians and as a make-shift break area for employees during the warmer months.

After extensive discussion, the Commission ultimately approved the initial design conditioned on revisions.

Secretary’s Report

It was noted that the Plan Commission will be the approving body on upcoming changes proposed for demolition permits submitted to the City of Madison. The move stems from the City’s desire to remove administrative tasks from the purview of various Commissions and Committees and instead relocate them to City Staff who are more familiar with the requirements and ordinances associated with applications.

The Secretary also noted the March 5th meeting is slated to be another light meeting, with only three items currently on the docket, the first of which is a comprehensive signage review for Baker’s Place. She mentioned that the area is “really starting to take shape” and personally thinks it looks “really good.” The remaining two items will be informational presentations, one for upcoming design plans at the corner of East Washington Avenue and South Franklin Street near their previously discussed Porchlight project, and the other pertaining to a five-unit, multi-family home being proposed for the corner of East Washington Avenue and North Fair Oaks.

Lastly, the Secretary reassured the Commissioners she is working diligently to fill a number of empty seats that remain on the committee with several promising prospects. At this point, the group is running on a skeleton crew, meaning if anyone were to lose connection during the meeting it is highly likely they would lose quorum and need to halt operations. This is problematic, as it impacts timing for not only Urban Planning’s approvals, but applicants’ abilities to move on to other committees’ approvals as well. As if on cue, Alder Rummel was needed elsewhere by the City and Commissione Asad’s presentation was put on hold for yet another week.

Meeting Summaries

Meeting Details

August 13, 2025

Final Approval for Fair Oaks and East Washington Avenue Mixed-Use Development

Central at the Forge Affordable Housing Proposal

July 30th, 2025

Consent Agenda:

Mixed-Use Building on East Washington Avenue at Fair Oaks

For Next Time

July 16th, 2025

Rosen Nissan Signage Updates

Eastmorland Community Center and Housing Development

June 25th, 2025

Wayfinding Signage Proposal

Commission Changes

May 28th, 2025

Mixed-Use Development on University Avenue at Meadow Lane

Facade Alterations on Gilman Street

Dane County Sustainability Campus

A Farewell to a Member of the “Skeleton Crew”

May 7, 2025

Items Passed Unanimously on tonight’s Consent Agenda:

Updates to an Already Approved Proposal

Nasty Grahams to the Urban Design Commission

March 5, 2025

3361-3375 East Washington Avenue

501 E Washington Avenue

February 19, 2025

Consent Agenda:

5001 Femrite Drive

7 Brew Coffee

Secretary’s Report