Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission discusses scope and goals of Urban Design Commission code update
Summary
Staff presented an early scoping discussion on revising urban design code and the Urban Design Commission (UDC) review process, seeking guidance on which design topics should be required versus advisory and where design review should apply across the city.
City planning staff and Urban Design Commission (UDC) staff briefed the Plan Commission on Oct. 16 about a project to update the city’s urban design code and to reconsider how the UDC and Plan Commission work together on design review.
Jessica Vaughn, UDC secretary and planner, framed three topics for feedback: (1) what urban design goals the city should prioritize, (2) which design elements should be required versus guidance, and (3) what parts of the city should be subject to UDC review. “I think it's they pair well because when you think about what you want to influence you also need to think about where you want to influence that,” Vaughn said.
Why it matters: The UDC currently reviews some downtown, urban mixed‑use and residential building‑complex projects as an advisory or approving body depending on district and project type. Commissioners and stakeholders raised concerns about predictability, subjectivity in design review, and inconsistent guidance across districts; staff said the update will consider whether to add clearer, objective standards for frequently reviewed topics.
Key discussion items
- What to regulate and where: Staff proposed grouping design considerations into three layers—context (mass, scale, setbacks), active streetscape (entries, glazing, street‑level uses, pedestrian interface) and fine details (materials, articulation, stylistic detailing). Commissioners suggested prioritizing objective standards that affect walkability and pedestrian experience while limiting overly subjective requirements (for example, color choices).
- Which projects to include: Staff and commissioners discussed whether residential building complexes (multiple principal buildings on a single parcel) should remain within UDC review. Some commissioners and public commenters urged removing or narrowing UDC review of those complexes because they often occur at the urban periphery and produce limited design guidance under current ordinances.
- Predictability vs. flexibility: Several commissioners asked the project to favor clearer, predictable standards (for example, required elements that affect pedestrian safety and public‑realm interface) while retaining some discretionary review for special districts where unique design outcomes are desired.
- Process and stakeholders: Staff said they will expand outreach, including stakeholder groups, design professionals and neighborhood associations, and will publish an interactive website with maps and a public survey. Jessica Vaughn said earlier outreach had yielded useful survey responses and staff will return with suggested design principles and targeted code updates.
Public comment and advice
Bill Connors of Smart Growth Greater Madison urged the commission to avoid expanding UDC authority over site circulation and to provide clearer design standards for residential building complexes to reduce ad hoc and subjective review outcomes.
Next steps
Staff will finalize scoping questions, publish an outreach portal, continue stakeholder meetings and return with draft design principles and recommended code changes. The update is planned as a step‑wise process: identify principles now, follow with specific code language and process improvements in subsequent phases.
