REGULAR MEETING of the DESIGN COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2024, 6:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1405 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Design Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, call or email Nicole Corona, at 512-974-3146 or nicole.corona@austintexas.gov. CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS/COMMISSIONERS: Jon Salinas, Chair Josue Meiners, Vice Chair David Carroll Nkiru Gelles Kevin Howard Conners Ladner AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Ben Luckens Marissa McKinney Brita Wallace Brendan Wittstruck Vacancy, District 6 The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Design Commission regular meeting on November 19, 2024. 1. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding an update to the Great Streets Program. Presented by Jill Amezcua, Planning Department. Sponsors: Chair Salinas and Commissioner Carroll. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Discussion and action on whether the Asian American Resource Center Phase II Improvement Project, located at 8401 Cameron Road, complies with the City Design and Sustainability Standards. Presented by David Sweere and Trey Trahan, Trahan Architects. Discussion and action to recommend to City Council guidance on billboard placement and community and urban design impacts due to the Interstate Highway 35 corridor improvements. Presented by Margaret Lloyd, Scenic Texas, and Jim Walker and Girard Kinney, Cherrywood Neighborhood Association. Sponsors: Chair Salinas and Commissioner Wittstruck. WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES Update from the Urban Design Guidelines Working Group regarding the meeting on November 22, 2024. Update from the representative of the Downtown Commission regarding the meeting on November 20, 2024. Update from the representative of the Joint Sustainability Committee regarding the meeting on November 20, 2024. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Note: City Code requires two board members sponsor an item to be included on an agenda. This section of the agenda provides members an opportunity to request items for future agendas. Staff should assume that if …
1. DESIGN COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 The Design Commission convened in a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Salinas called the Design Commission meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance: Jon Salinas, Chair David Carroll Nkiru Gelles Kevin Howard Brita Wallace Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Conners Ladner Ben Luckens PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Design Commission regular meeting on October 28, 2024. The minutes from the meeting of 10/28/2024 were approved on Commissioner Gelles’ motion, Commissioner Carroll’s second on a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Luckens was off the dais. Vice Chair Meiners and Commissioners McKinney and Wittstruck were absent. One vacancy on the dais. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Presentation by John Rigdon, Waterloo Greenway, regarding an update on the Palm Park design process. 1 Presentation was made by John Rigdon, Waterloo Greenway. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. Select a representative to serve on the Downtown Commission per City Code § 2-1-140. The motion to select Nkiru Gelles as the representative for Downtown Commission was approved on Chair Salinas’ motion, Commissioner Howard’s second on a 7-0 vote. Vice Chair Meiners and Commissioners McKinney and Wittstruck were absent. One vacancy on the dais. WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES 4. Update from the representative of the South-Central Waterfront Advisory Board regarding the meeting on November 18, 2024. Update was given by Commissioner Ladner. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Discussion and action on the minimum requirements for applicants participating in the Downtown Density Bonus Program. Sponsors: Chair Salinas and Commissioner Howard. Staff briefing on the update to the Great Streets Program. Presented by Jill Amezcua, Planning Department. Sponsors: Chair Salinas and Commissioner Carroll. Chair Salinas adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m. without objection. 2
Great Streets Program Update Presentation Agenda - Demographics - Existing Conditions Analysis - Community engagement - Great Streets light pole Demographics Population Increase 2010-2020 Downtown Austin City of Austin Downtown Austin Inhabitants: % of Austin Residents Living Downtown Source: 2022 ACS Five-Year Estimates Source: 2022 ACS Five-Year Estimates Housing Statistics Downtown Austin Source: DDA State of Downtown Report 2022 Existing Conditions Analysis • Completed inventory of Great Streets elements • Condition of Great Streets elements • Top 3 streetscape elements • Bottom 3 streetscape elements • Planters • Signs • Sidewalk cafes • Trash receptacles • Benches • Tree/paver grates Create Champions & Supporters Generate Diverse Ideas & Solutions Identify and Unpack the Problem(s) Find Opportunities for Alignment & Collaboration Evaluate Implementation Processes Engagement & Outreach • 1-on-1 personal conversations • Round table meetings • Topical focus groups • Small-group workshops • Interactive public art and tactical urbanism installations • Strategic departmental and external supporters Great Streets Light Pole • Great Streets light pole redesign and purchase • Update current design of Great Streets light pole IMAGE Great Streets Update Process Phase 1: Analysis Phase 2: Vision Phase 3: Scoping Phase 4: Production •Existing Conditions •Review of relevant plans •Public Involvement •Stakeholder meetings •Scope of Work •Deliverables •Compiling Feedback •Draft Plan •Review •Draft Deliverables Reviews and Approval •Public Review •Final Deliverable Approved by Council Next Steps • Community engagement • Update Great Streets Plan and Standards
Asian American Resource Center Pavilion Design Commission Project Review Application Appendix II - Community Engagement Documentation December 02, 2024 Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project NAAO Community Engagement Meeting JAN 26, 2022 Community Engagement Kickoff Meeting MAR 29, 2022 AARC Staff Engagement Meeting JAN 27 2022 Community Engagement Kickoff Meeting MAR 29, 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 2 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project AARC CelebASIA Engagement MAY 14 2022 AARC Design Charrette JUN 17 2022 AARC CelebASIA Engagement MAY 14 2022 AARC Integrated Design Charrette AUG 08 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 3 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project PROJECT GOALS 1. The building and campus should have a Sense of Home for the Community. 2. Access and Inclusivity are critical aspects of the project. 3. The building should harbor Cross-Cultural Exchange 4. The building should focus around Performing Arts and Artist Cultivation. 5. The building should act as a Hybrid for Performances and Community Events. 6. The building should be Accessible Beyond Performance/Event Times. 7. Appropriate, Inclusive and Respectful Influences of Asian Culture 8. The building should have a Simple Aesthetic and Natural Light. 9. The project should have an Environmental Response. NAAO AARC Staff AAQoL AARC Staff JAN 26, 2022 JAN 27, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 AARC Creatives & Artists FEB 08, 2022 AARC Staff Written Response FEB 15, 2022 Community Kickoff MAR 29, 2022 Community Survey Results MAR 01-APR 11, 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 4 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project THEATER 1. Performance & Community Events 2. Flexibility - Stage 3. Flexibility - Seating 4. Flexibility - Acoustics 5. Full Sound Board 6. Control Booth NAAO AARC Staff AAQoL AARC Staff JAN 26, 2022 JAN 27, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 AARC Creatives & Artists FEB 08, 2022 AARC Staff Written Response FEB 15, 2022 Community Kickoff MAR 29, 2022 Community Survey Results MAR 01-APR 11, 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 5 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project - Community Survey Results - 2022 What types of performances would you like to If you hope …
Asian American Resource Center Pavilion Design Commission Project Review Application Appendix II - Community Engagement Documentation December 02, 2024 Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project NAAO Community Engagement Meeting JAN 26, 2022 Community Engagement Kickoff Meeting MAR 29, 2022 AARC Staff Engagement Meeting JAN 27 2022 Community Engagement Kickoff Meeting MAR 29, 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 2 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project AARC CelebASIA Engagement MAY 14 2022 AARC Design Charrette JUN 17 2022 AARC CelebASIA Engagement MAY 14 2022 AARC Integrated Design Charrette AUG 08 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 3 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project PROJECT GOALS 1. The building and campus should have a Sense of Home for the Community. 2. Access and Inclusivity are critical aspects of the project. 3. The building should harbor Cross-Cultural Exchange 4. The building should focus around Performing Arts and Artist Cultivation. 5. The building should act as a Hybrid for Performances and Community Events. 6. The building should be Accessible Beyond Performance/Event Times. 7. Appropriate, Inclusive and Respectful Influences of Asian Culture 8. The building should have a Simple Aesthetic and Natural Light. 9. The project should have an Environmental Response. NAAO AARC Staff AAQoL AARC Staff JAN 26, 2022 JAN 27, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 AARC Creatives & Artists FEB 08, 2022 AARC Staff Written Response FEB 15, 2022 Community Kickoff MAR 29, 2022 Community Survey Results MAR 01-APR 11, 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 4 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project THEATER 1. Performance & Community Events 2. Flexibility - Stage 3. Flexibility - Seating 4. Flexibility - Acoustics 5. Full Sound Board 6. Control Booth NAAO AARC Staff AAQoL AARC Staff JAN 26, 2022 JAN 27, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 FEB 08, 2022 AARC Creatives & Artists FEB 08, 2022 AARC Staff Written Response FEB 15, 2022 Community Kickoff MAR 29, 2022 Community Survey Results MAR 01-APR 11, 2022 D e c e m b e r 02 , 2 024 5 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Community + Stakeholder Engagement Performing Arts Center Project - Community Survey Results - 2022 What types of performances would you like to If you hope …
Asian American Resource Center Pavilion Phase II Performance Pavilion Design Commission Review Presentation December 09, 2024 Project Introduction + Goals D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 2 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Project Introduction As part of the Asian American Resource Center Master Plan Phase II Plan, this project is the creation of a pavilion within the great lawn area on the site. This pavilion aims to enhance the AARC by providing a versatile space where Austin’s diverse Asian American communities can come together to share their cultural heritage and participate in enriching programs. The pavilion will serve as a multipurpose, flexible venure, designed to blend with the existing great lawn and positioned between the AARC and upcoming Watershed Protection Department improvements. Planned as a year-round venue, the pavilion will host a variety of small or medium-sized events and programs. Key features of the pavilion include: A performance area Accessible facilities and amenities Infrastructure to support a range of community activities D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 3 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER AARC Guiding Principles & Values MISSION STATEMENT The Asian American Resource Center’s mission is to create a space of belonging and healing for Asian American communities in Austin and beyond. We do this through community Collaborations and partnerships; providing rental space; organizing cultural, educational, and health wellness programs and curating art and historical exhibitions. We lead with our values and our vision, so that our diverse Solidarity - Recognizing our interconnectedness with ourselves and other communities of color. communities are supported and connected. VALUES Diversity - Acknowledging our cultures and histories. Peace - Creating space for healing and unity. Collaboration - Building relationships and co-creating. Intergenerational - Connecting through stories. D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 4 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER AARC 2019 Vision Plan D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 5 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Vision Plan Event Lawn Programming Phase II within Scope of Work Classroom 1-8 and Conference Room (2,677sf) • Parking (222 spaces including existing parking) Phase I • Existing Building (18,000sf) Ballroom (5,022sf) Library/Computer Lab (422sf) Office Space (1,095sf) Storage Space (516sf) Commercial Kitchen (approx 650sf) • Existing Parking (91 spaces ) • Art in Public Places: Lotus Fountain Sculpture • Great Lawn Phase II • Performing Arts Building with …
Building Siting CelebrASIA 2022 D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 2 5 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Building Siting Kick-off Meeting Comments Summary 09.25.2024 SITING GUIDELINES Preserve Open Great Lawn Area Integrate with the Landscape + Live Oak Trees Maximize View Angle of the Performances (open to Phase I) Shade the Audience for Thermal Comfort (without rental tent) Use Existing Grade for Natural Amphitheatre Seating Loading Access from Ring Road D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 2 6 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Concept D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 2 7 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Origami Traditional Paper Folding D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 2 8 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Origami Traditional Paper Folding D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 2 9 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER15263748 Origami Traditional Paper Folding Watershed Project Picnic Area Great Lawn Lotus Sculpture Phase I Building D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 3 0 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Site Design D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 3 1 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Site Plan Site Circulation + Accessibility DA A FOH Position A D A 7 5 ’ 7 0 ’ 6 5 ’ 6 0 ’ A D A D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 32 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Site Plan Event Support Power Pedestal to Support FOH Mixing Position Buried Conduit Connections for Electrical + AV Theatrical Lighting Pole Infrastructure I ) C N ( n o i t c e n n o C d r o C n o i s n e t x E Exterior Outlets to Support Industrial Fans + Pressure Washing Equipment Power Pedestals to Support Food Trucks Extension Cord Connection (NIC) D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 3 3 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Building Plan D E C E M B E R 0 9, 2 02 4 3 4 ASIAN AMERICANRESOURCE CENTER Building Plan +615' - 2" +617' - 2" WC 76sf Exterior Multi-Purpose Platform 1194sf Rack Room/ MEP 147sf +617' - 2" " 6 - 5 ' Flexible BOH Space 291sf " 0 - ' 6 +617' - 2" …
C i t y o f A u s t i n Design Commission Project Review Application Photo courtesy of Jorge E. Rousselin C i t y o f A u s t i n Design Commission Project Review Application The Design Commission provides advisory recommendations to the City Council to assist in developing public policy and to promote excellence in the design and development of the urban environment. The Design Commission reviews three types of projects: 1. City projects (see page 3 for process) The Commission reviews all municipal buildings and associated site plans to ensure they demonstrate compliance with city design and sustainability standards (Council Resolution No. 20071129-046), including those seeking Subchapter E Design Standards Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) (Council Resolution No. 20100923-086). 2. Density Bonus projects (see page 4 for process) The Commission reviews density bonus projects for substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines for Austin in accordance with the Gatekeeper requirements of LDC 25-2-586 for the Downtown Density Bonus Program. 3. Advisory Recommendations for Private projects (see page 3 for process) The Commission will consider Project Review Applications from private projects during its regularly scheduled monthly public meetings and may issue an advisory recommendation in the form of a Project Review Letter to the Applicant. Page 2 Design Commission - Project Review ApplicationPhoto courtesy of Jorge E. Rousselin This Project Review Application must be submitted before your project can be presented to the Design Commission for their review. Design Commission requests project be presented in their Conceptual/ Schematic Design phase. This application primarily addresses inhabited buildings and structures and their effect on the public realm; please refer to Appendix A for infrastructure type projects. The Commission’s review of projects is based on the planning/design principles in the Urban Design Guidelines for Austin. Ensure that all applicable principles are addressed in the application questions and in your presentation. The Design Commission supports the vision and principles of Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, especially those that affect the urban environment and fabric. All projects should consider this vision and principles, many of which are similar to the Urban Design Guidelines. Refer to Appendix C for the most pertinent sections of Imagine Austin. The Design Commission expects the applicant’s design team to present their project with those most knowledgeable and encourages the inclusion of sub-consultants at the presentation, when deemed necessary. EXHIBITS TO PRESENT 1. Completed Project Review Application …
GIRARD KINNEY CHAIR PHILLIP REED VICE CHAIR CALVIN CHEN JUAN COTERA JOAN HYDE PERRY LORENZ ELEANOR MCKINNEY RICHARD WEISS JEANNIE WIGINTON ERICA LEAK STAFF LIAISON AUSTIN DESIGN COMMISSION Amendment to the Sign Ordinance 07 April 2008 Re: Mayor Wynn and members of the City Council; The Design Commission has reviewed the proposed Amendment to the Sign Ordinance and offers these comments in our role of advising Council with respect to Urban Design Issues in the City. In general, the Commission favors well-conceived signage in the public realm that aids in way-finding and does not contribute to visual clutter. Our view is that pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers and users of public transportation should have clear and unobstructed views of the natural and built environment without overhead lines, mechanical equipment or unnecessary signage. The Commission also supports protections offered by the various ordinances that seek to protect the scenic beauty of the Scenic Roadway system in our City and the Hill Country. With these facts in mind, we make the following recommendations: BILLBOARD RELOCATIONS • The Design Commission opposes the concept of relocation, opposed the 2004 council decision allowing it, and recommends eliminating the concept entirely. • The Design Commission opposes the expansion of the roadways to which billboards can be relocated, including any portion of Scenic Roadways. • The Design Commission opposes the proposed elimination of the 300 Sq. Ft Area of Signs in Commercial Sign Districts, which would allow relocation of signs of up to 672 Sq. Ft. in these districts. • The Design Commission supports the "greening" of signage by requiring low wattage lamps for illuminating the signs at night. BILLBOARD LOCATIONS: The Design Commission would like the proximity restrictions extended to schools, prohibiting the installation of a sign within 800 feet of a boundary of school property. BAN MOBILE BILLBOARDS: We support the banning of mobile billboards. While we support and applaud well designed graphics, logos and signage on business vehicles that identify the goods transported by those vehicles, we regard Mobile Billboards as off-premise signage which the City banned in 1983. Neighborhood Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767-8810 FEES FOR TAXICAB SIGNAGE: While we would prefer not to have advertising on Taxicabs (other than that advertising the cab company), if such signage is to continue to be allowed on taxis, we have no objection to charging a fee for the signage, if the amount …
Exhibit A – updated to incorporate Council Action from 5/8/08 and Final Commission recommendations as of 5/27/08 Sign Regulation Amendment Tracking Sheet November Resolution Proposals Current Code/Impact Recommendations No such definitions exist in the current code. 1. Define elevated travel ways and except major interchanges and intersections from that definition 2. Prohibit truck-mounted and car- mounted ads within the full-purpose City limits, on vehicles driven solely for the purpose of advertising businesses that are unrelated to the vehicle's primary business, excluding vehicles that are not motor-operated (such as pedi-cabs), vehicles which display only an advertisement or business identification of its owner so long as such vehicle is engaged in the usual business or regular work of its owner and is not used merely, mainly, or primarily to display "third-party" advertisements, and buses used primarily for the purpose of transporting multiple passengers. 3. Clarify, and establish penalties, for Section 25-10-152(B)(6)(b) that removes the right to replace a billboard sign once it is removed City Code does not currently regulate “mobile” billboards. Amendment bans motor-operated vehicles that operate for the main/sole purpose of advertising a business’ unrelated to the purpose or business of the vehicle. For example, vehicles with advertisements displaying the business of the owner of the vehicle would be allowed. But, vehicles advertising an unrelated business would not be authorized. Buses, including those operated by Capital Metro, are exempt from this regulation if they are used primarily for the purpose of transporting multiple passengers. Pedi-cabs and horse-drawn carriages would be exempt as well. Signs that are part of a relocation application must be removed from their original site and may not be replaced. Amendment clarifies once the sign is physically removed/relocated, it cannot be replaced, regardless if a replacement application is submitted/approved. Council Action Compared to November Resolution Proposals 1st Reading – Did not accept definitions. 1st Reading – Accepted with PC recommendation to give 2 years for existing companies to comply. 1st Reading – Intended to be accepted; needs clarification. Design Commission. No specific recommendation Planning Commission (full). Not applicable due to non-support for increased height. Design Commission. Recommended. Applauds well designed graphics, etc on business vehicles that identify goods transported by the vehicles. Regards mobile billboards as off- premise signage banned since ‘83. Planning Commission (full). Recommended with clarifications. Immediately ban new mobile billboard businesses. For existing mobile billboard companies operating in Austin (City is aware of two …
ORDINANCE NO. 20080605-076 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 25-10-3 TO DEFINE MOBILE BILLBOARDS; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 25-10-102 TO PROHIBIT MOBILE BILLBOARDS; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 25-10- 152 RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-CONFORMING SIGNS; AND ADDING A NEW CITY CODE SECTION 2540-237 TO IMPOSE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. The city council makes the following findings1 (A) The basic purpose of mobile billboards is to display commercial advertising on public streets By their nature, mobile billboards are intended to attract the attention of citizens on public streets and adjacent right-of-way, including drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others (B) Vehicles that display commercial advertising fiom a mobile platform, which can stop, start, and turn abruptly, accentuate the tendency of commercial advertising to seize attention and distract drivers and pedestnans (C) The use of motor vehicles to display commercial advertising creates exhaust emissions and adds to traffic congestion by placing additional motor vehicles on City streets for the sole purpose of advertising Air quality in the City of Austin metropolitan planning area has deteriorated such that the area may be categorized as a "non-attainment" area in the near future under Environmental Protection Agency regulations (D) For these reasons, mobile billboards create aesthetic blight and visual clutter, as well as potential and actual traffic, health, and safety hazards Prohibiting mobile billboards will promote the public health, safety and welfare of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and others using public streets and roadways in the City and adjoining areas, by eliminating aesthetic blight and visual clutter and potential traffic and safety hazards caused by the operation of mobile billboards A traffic congestion and exhaust emissions by prohibition will also eliminating an emission source that requires and encourages continuous and extensive operation of motor vehicle engines Finally, a prohibition of mobile billboards will protect the public investment in and the character and dignity of the City's streets reduce Page 1 of 10 PART 2. City Code Section 25-10-3 (Definitions) is amended to read § 25-10-3 DEFINITIONS. In this chapter (1) ADVERTISING SEARCHLIGHT means a searchlight used to direct beams of light upward for advertising purposes (2) COMMERCIAL FLAG means a piece of fabric or other flexible material displayed for commercial purposes, but excluding the official flag of a nation or of a state (3) FREESTANDING SIGN means a sign not attached …
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Summarized by Issue BILLBOARDS Reagan Advertising. With the respect to Section 25-10-3; definitions # 3, limit to one definition: Elevated Travel Ways OR Elevated Travel Lanes. There is no need to have both terms included in the definition. With respect to definition # 5 Main-Traveled Way, the last sentence should be deleted in the sense those areas referenced in the sentence should not be excluded from the definition. Main-Traveled Way should include turning roadways, entrance or exit ramps and parking areas as well as frontage roads or entrance ramps of any type. With respect to Section 25-10-152(5) regarding replacement of off-premise signs should be deleted in its entirety. Rather than make it punitive for someone who has a sign relocated from their property and then in turn replaces a sign on the same property, which the City has had a difficult time enforcing under the current Ordinance, it should be clarified, and the replacement section should be removed. The replacement section serves no benefit to anyone. It allows the signs to remain in its current location in perpetuity. Moreover, someone replaces a sign on a piece of property, after a sign has been relocated; the result is an increase the overall number of signs within the City of Austin. This is contrary to the stated objectives of the preambles of the Ordinance and the relocation policy. With respect to 25-10-152 (6)(b), the punitive statement needs to be removed in conjunction with the elimination of Section 25-10-152(5). No statement has been made anywhere, in the existing ordinance. It is unlawful to replace a sign where relocation has already taken place. Additionally, what is to happen to additional or future sign owners who can be subject to penalties for purport acts which were carried out by the previous owners? With respect 25-10-152(6)(d)(ii), the word sign should be pluralized as well elevated travel ways and we should insert the word main-traveled way of the elevated travel lanes for clarification purposes. Additionally, the distance in 25-10-152(6)(d)(ii)(1) seems too short at 500 feet. Reagan Advertisings recommend expanding this to 1000 feet. Additionally, 25-10- 152(6)(d)(ii)(2) should be deleted in its entirety, as 2640 feet is far too excessive and the definition itself is ambiguous. It would be simpler to say that signs placed on flyovers are prohibited and list what those flyovers are rather than try to define a ramp and/or other interchanges or …
City of Austin v Reagan & Lamar Outdoor Advertising Companies Underlying case: Two outdoor advertising companies, Reagan and Lamar (Reagan/Lamar), filed permit applications to allow approximately 80 non-digital billboards to be converted into digital billboards. The city denied, and Reagan/Lamar sued claiming the city was acting unconstitutionally by allowing digital on-premise business signs but denying digital off-premise billboards. The District Court agreed with the City. Reagan/Lamar appealed to the Fifth Circuit who agreed with Reagan/Lamar. The City appealed to SCOTUS who ultimately held FOR the City, and remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit to determine whether Austin’s sign code furthered an important governmental interest by a means that substantially related to that governmental interest, aka, “intermediate” scrutiny standard. SCOTUS: Reversed and Remanded to Fifth Circuit, 6-3, in an opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor on April 21, 2022. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. The majority found that the distinction between on-premises signs and off-premises signs in the city of Austin’s sign code was facially content-neutral under the First Amendment, but the majority also remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit in order to assure that the city ordinance passed the content-neutral test under intermediate scrutiny. In other words, the Fifth Circuit had to hear arguments and evidence to determine whether the city sign code furthered an important government interest via a means that substantially related to that governmental interest. Fifth Circuit Remand: In March 2023, the Fifth Circuit finally held the city sign code passed constitutional muster under the intermediate scrutiny test, thus upholding the city’s denial of the 80 city digital permit applications. It found the city’s stated interests in traffic safety and aesthetics was undisputed, and then concluded there was enough evidence, including common sense, to support Austin’s Sign Code distinctions. The Fifth Circuit noted that municipalities have traditionally been given wide discretion in the domain of sign regulations, thus allowing Austin that same latitude. SCOTUS Majority Opinion highlights: Location-based regulations are not content-based. A majority of the Court, led by Justice Sotomayor, held that Austin’s on/off premises distinction was content neutral on its face. Justice Sotomayor gave the history of outdoor-advertising regulation in the United States. “American jurisdictions,” she explained, “have regulated outdoor advertisements for well over a century.” And, “[a]s part of this regulatory tradition,” governments “have long distinguished” between signs that promote things located elsewhere …
March 21, 2024 Via Electronic Delivery Amanda Swor direct dial: (512) 807-2904 aswor@drennergroup.com Ms. Lauren Middleton-Pratt, Director Planning Department, City of Austin Street-Jones Building 1000 East 11th Street, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78702 Re: 1106 and 1110 East 30th Street – Neighborhood Plan Amendment application and rezoning application for the 0.4054-acre property located at 1106 and 1110 East 30th Street in Austin, Travis County, Texas (the “Property”); identified by Travis Central Appraisal District Parcel Numbers 0214090420 and 0214090418. Dear Ms. Middleton-Pratt: As representatives of the owner of the Property, we respectfully submit the enclosed Neighborhood Plan Amendment application and rezoning application packages. The project is titled 1106 and 1110 East 30th Street and is comprised of 0.4054 acres of land that contains existing single-family residential uses. The Property is located east of Interstate Highway 35 along East 30th Street. The Property is located within the Neighborhood Planning Area of Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Plan, therefore a Neighborhood Plan Amendment will be required. The proposal is to amend the Future Land Use Map from Single-Family to Mixed-Use: Retail. The rezoning application request has been submitted concurrent with the Neighborhood Plan Amendment. The Property is currently zoned SF-3-NP (Family Residence-Neighborhood Plan). The Property is currently developed with existing single-family residential. The requested rezoning is from SF-3-NP to CS-MU-V-CO-NP (General Commercial Services-Mixed Use-Vertical Mixed Use-Conditional Overlay-Neighborhood Plan). The purpose of the rezoning is to relocate an existing billboard from the property fronting onto Interstate Highway 35 which will be condemned with the I-35 Capital Express Central project. A billboard cannot be relocated to a property that holds a zoning designation of SF-3, and all parcels between Interstate Highway 35 and the Property will be condemned with said project. As part of the rezoning application, we offer to prohibit the following uses as part of the conditional overlay: • Automotive Rentals • Automotive Repair Services • Automotive Sales • Automotive Washing • Bail Bond Services • Construction Sales and Services • Drop-Off Recycling Collection Facility • Electronic Prototype Assembly • Electronic Testing • Equipment Repair Services • Equipment Sales • Funeral Services • Pawn Shop Services • Pedicab Storage and Dispatch • Service Station • Vehicle Storage • Custom Manufacturing The Neighborhood Plan Amendment pre-application meeting sign-off was provided by Austin Plan Amendment Case Manager Maureen Meredith on February 21, 2024. A Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) is not required, per approved TIA Determination Form …
Austin 827,227 sorted by City City Addison, Town of Alamo Aledo Alice Allen Alvin Andrews Angleton Anna Annetta Anthony, Town of Aransas Pass Archer City Argyle, Town of Aubrey Azle Bailey's Prairie Village Balch Springs Ballinger Bartonville, Town of Bastrop Bayside Bayview, Town of Beach City Beaumont Bedford Bee Cave Bellaire Bellmead Bellville Belton Benbrook Bertram Beverly Hills Blanco Boerne Bonham Bonney Brenham Bridgeport Bryan Buda Bulverde Bunker Hill Population 13,056 18,353 3,210 19,104 84,246 24,236 14,000 18,862 8,249 2,630 5,011 8,204 1,834 3,282 2,595 10,947 727 23,728 3,767 1,469 7,394 325 383 2,198 118,296 46,979 5,163 16,855 9,901 4,097 19,809 21,234 1,353 1,995 1,739 12,564 10,127 310 15,716 6,045 76,201 10,205 5,027 3,633 No New Billboards Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Although Austin sign code does not permit new billboard locations, it undermines that provision by allowing existing billboards that operate along certain scenic-designated highways to move (aka, relocate) to certain non scenic-designated highways. We are not aware of any other Texas city on this list that allows this. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes sorted by City City Burleson Canyon Carrollton Castroville Cedar Hill Cedar Park Celina Chandler Cibolo Clarendon Cleburne Clute College Station Colleyville Conroe Converse Cooper Coppell Corinth Cross Roads, Town of Crowley Cuero Dayton Decatur DeCordova Denton Devine Dickinson Double Oak, Town of Dripping Springs Dumas Duncanville Eagle Lake Eastland Eden Edgecliff Village El Campo El Lago Elgin Elmendorf Emory Euless Everman Fair OaksRanch Fairfield Fairview, Town of Farmers Branch Farmersville Fate Population 36,690 13,303 119,097 2,909 45,028 57,957 7,320 2,734 25,000 2,026 29,337 11,211 93,857 22,807 71,592 18,198 1,969 39,880 19,935 1,100 13,900 6,841 7,242 6,330 2,683 121,123 4,350 18,680 2,867 1,919 14,691 38,524 3,639 3,960 2,766 2,776 11,602 2,706 8,135 1,488 1,239 51,277 6,108 6,084 3,091 8,400 28,616 3,350 6,357 No New Billboards Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes sorted by City City Ferris Florence Flower Mound, Town of Forest Hill Fort Stockton Fort Worth Fredericksburg Freeport …
sorted by Population City Houston San Antonio Population 2,157,096 1,410,000 Austin 827,227 Fort Worth Plano Irving Grand Prairie Pasadena Mesquite Frisco McAllen McKinney Denton Carrollton Beaumont Round Rock Richardson Lewisville College Station Pearland Allen League City Sugar Land Bryan Conroe Pharr Missouri City Flower Mound, Town of North Richland Hills New Braunfels Mansfield Rowlett Cedar Park Pflugerville Georgetown Euless Grapevine Galveston Bedford Cedar Hill Wylie Rockwall Keller Coppell Friendswood 781,000 271,140 216,290 175,396 149,043 142,230 140,220 138,808 131,117 121,123 119,097 118,296 106,573 102,430 95,290 93,857 91,252 84,246 83,560 78,817 76,201 71,592 70,400 67,358 66,830 63,780 62,998 59,954 58,043 57,957 56,831 52,303 51,277 50,514 49,608 46,979 45,028 41,427 41,370 41,090 39,880 39,871 No New Billboards Yes No Although Austin sign code does not permit new billboard locations, it undermines that provision by allowing existing billboards that operate along certain scenic-designated highways to move (aka, relocate) to certain non scenic-designated highways. We are not aware of any other Texas city on this list that allows this. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes sorted by Population City Hurst Huntsville Duncanville Lancaster Kyle Burleson Rosenberg Leander San Juan Little Elm Nacogdoches Socorro Schertz Waxahachie Cleburne Farmers Branch Southlake Lake Jackson Kingsville Weatherford Cibolo Alvin Balch Springs Watauga University Park Colleyville Hutto Benbrook Corinth Belton Stafford Stephenville Alice Angleton Palestine Dickinson Alamo Converse Bellaire Mineral Wells Horizon City, Town of White Settlement Taylor Uvalde Brenham Hereford Humble Seagoville Portland Population 38,600 38,548 38,524 38,361 37,700 36,690 34,127 34,000 33,856 33,125 32,996 32,013 31,788 30,233 29,337 28,616 27,080 27,000 26,213 26,200 25,000 24,236 23,728 23,497 23,068 22,807 21,992 21,234 19,935 19,809 19,560 19,560 19,104 18,862 18,712 18,680 18,353 18,198 16,855 16,800 16,735 16,116 16,080 15,751 15,716 15,370 15,133 15,130 15,099 No New Billboards Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes sorted by Population City Highland Village West University Place Prosper, Town of Dumas Katy Andrews Crowley Canyon Addison, Town of Forest Hill Freeport Boerne Lakeway Port Lavaca Santa …
REGULAR MEETING of the DESIGN COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024, 6:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1405 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Design Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, call or email Nicole Corona, at 512-974-3146 or nicole.corona@austintexas.gov. CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS/COMMISSIONERS: Jon Salinas, Chair Josue Meiners, Vice Chair David Carroll Nkiru Gelles Kevin Howard Conners Ladner AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Ben Luckens Marissa McKinney Brita Wallace Brendan Wittstruck Vacancy, District 6 The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Design Commission regular meeting on October 28, 2024. 1. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Presentation by John Rigdon, Waterloo Greenway, regarding an update on the Palm Park design process. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 3. WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES Select a representative to serve on the Downtown Commission per City Code § 2-1-140. 4. Update from the representative of the South-Central Waterfront Advisory Board regarding the meeting on November 18, 2024. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Note: City Code requires two board members sponsor an item to be included on an agenda. This section of the agenda provides members an opportunity to request items for future agendas. Staff should assume that if there is no objection from other members expressed at the meeting, the members’ silence indicates approval for staff to include on the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call or email Nicole Corona at the Planning Department, at 512-974-3146 or nicole.corona@austintexas.gov for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on …
1. DESIGN COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2024 The Design Commission convened in a regular meeting on Monday, October 28, 2024, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Salinas called the Design Commission meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance: Jon Salinas, Chair Josue Meiners, Vice Chair David Carroll Nkiru Gelles Kevin Howard Conners Ladner Ben Luckens Brita Wallace Brendan Wittstruck Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Marissa McKinney PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Design Commission regular meeting on September 23, 2024. The minutes from the meeting of 09/23/2024 were approved on Commissioner Howard’s motion, Vice Chair Meiners’ second on an 8-0-1 vote. Commissioner Carroll abstained. Commissioner Wallace was off the dais. One vacancy on the dais. STAFF BRIEFINGS 1 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 4. Staff briefing regarding an update on the Corridor Program. Presented by Eric Bailey, Capital Delivery Services Department. The presentation was made by Eric Bailey, Capital Delivery Services Department. Staff briefing regarding the Red River Cultural District. Presented by Donald Jackson, Economic Development Department. The presentation was made by Donald Jackson, Economic Development Department. Discussion and action to recommend the Equity-based Preservation Plan to City Council. Presented by Cara Bertron, Planning Department. The motion to recommend the Equity-based Preservation Plan to City Council was approved on Commissioner Wittstruck’s motion, Chair Salinas’ second on a 10-0 vote. One vacancy on the dais. Discussion and action to recommend to City Council whether the project 305 W MLK, located at 305 West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, complies with the Urban Design Guidelines for the City of Austin in accordance with Land Development Code § 25-2-586 (C)(1)(a)(ii). Presented by Victoria Haase, Thrower Design. The motion that the project 305 W MLK, located at 305 West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, does not comply with the Urban Design Guidelines for the City of Austin in accordance with Land Development Code § 25-2-586 (C)(1)(a)(ii) was approved with the following friendly amendments on motion by Commissioner Howard, seconded by Vice Chair Meiners on a 9-0-1 vote. Commissioner Carroll abstained. One vacancy on the dais. The friendly amendment from Vice Chair Meiners was that the project is not in compliance with the following Urban Design Guidelines: AW.5 – Incorporate Civic Art in Both Public and Private Development PS.1 – Protect the …
