ITEM 3 - Design Commission Annual Report Excerpt — original pdf

Backup

September 14th, 2026 DRAFT Recommended Bylaw Amendment Summary 1. Name change “Urban Design Commission” 2. Simplify and clarify authority (mechanisms) Recommend Council adopt bylaw amendments to: a. Change from discretionary to mandatory referral- Projects must come to the Design Commission and “shall be presented to Council and land use commissions with Design Commission recommendation attached". b. Amend existing code and criteria manual language updating name and cleaning-up language related to review of Downtown Density Bonus Program Projects for compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines 3. Clarify Purpose and Duties (focus areas) Purpose/Role clause: State that the Commission is the City's advisory body of record on urban design outcomes citywide. Mandatory Referral Items: Mandatory referral items must come before the Urban Design Commission for review and recommendation before the respective Planning or Zoning and Platting Commission takes final action. Items shall be presented to Planning Commission, Zoning and Platting Commission, and City Council with the Urban Design Commission recommendation attached; a. Plans, master plans, and major improvements on City-owned land. Major improvements are considered to be a project or series of projects with total construction costs of $2,000,000 or greater. b. Plans, programs, and projects with a material impact on the design of the public right-of-way, including major capital improvements in the right-of-way and updates or modifications to the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) Street Network Table and Map. "Major capital improvements" include street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, and any project involving 300 linear feet or more of excavation. Where “material impact” is unclear, the Chair shall determine applicability. c. Land Development Code (adoption and amendment), area plans (adoption and amendment), and City programs and projects affecting the following areas: i. transit station areas; ii. major transit corridors; and iii. the Central City District planning area. September 14th, 2026 DRAFT d. Regulating Plans, Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones, and Planned Unit Developments (adoption and amendment). Referral determination: Project staff determine applicability at case intake; where unclear, staff seek a determination from the Commission Chair. September 14th, 2026 DRAFT 4. (Focus Areas not mandated by bylaws)- Future commission-initiated goals and objectives. a. Major criteria manual adoptions and amendments related to: i. ROW design ii. Building siting iii. Ground floor design iv. v. Streetwalls and facade design Street yard landscaping b. Explore relieving PC or P&Z committees or joint committees of their pre-review responsibilities- taking over case load and making recommendations to PC and P&Z. c. Explore strategic alignment with economic development initiatives, cultural district creation, and redevelopment projects across Austin. d. Advocate for structural leadership within the City of Austin, including elevating urban design expertise within the Innovation Office and establishing an Assistant City Manager (ACM)-level urban design champion. e. Explore establishing a centralized Urban Design Center to serve as a hub for community engagement, education, and innovation. Leverage real-world pilot projects to demonstrate immediate urban design value in the public realm. Design Commission Annual Report Excerpt A. Which recommendations are closely aligned to the organization’s core mission and why? The following recommendations sit squarely within the Commission's core mission of promoting design excellence, sound urban form, and the public interest in the City's built environment: a. Recommendation to Planning Commission — Downtown Density Bonus Program Alternative Urban Design Standards. This recommendation addressed the substantive urban design standards governing downtown development directly — the Commission's core area of expertise — rather than administrative compliance review. b. Recommendation to City Council — support two-way street reversions downtown. Street network design shapes the pedestrian experience, streetscape quality, and public realm downtown, placing this recommendation within the Commission's urban form mandate. c. Recommendation to City Council — recognize the Design Commission as an official stakeholder in the Density Bonus Program update process, and recommend that the Commission and staff advance Council-requested updates to the Urban Design Guidelines. This positions the Commission as a policy-level contributor to the standards and guidelines that govern urban design citywide — the advisory role the Commission is best suited to, as distinct from project-by-project compliance review. B. Which recommendations are adjacent to the organization’s core mission and why? The Design Commission's current review of City projects reflects a mismatch between its role as a discretionary advisory body and Council's direction for that review. Council's direction on this review stems from a series of resolutions (#20071129-046 and #20100923-086) and the Commission's bylaws, which task the Commission with reviewing these projects against City sustainability and urban design standards, including alternative equivalent compliance requests. But the Commission, as an advisory body, is not well suited to administrative review for conformance with objective standards — nor does it receive the submittals or review timelines that role would require. This type of review is better suited to the Austin Development Services Department. As a result, the Commission's review of these projects tends toward superficial, qualitative commentary, occasionally touching on urban design. Commentary specifically on a project's alignment with urban design guidelines is squarely within the Commission's core mission — promoting design excellence, sound urban form, and the public interest in the City's built environment — but under the current interpretation of Council's direction, that focus falls outside the Commission's purview. C. Any further context to support or explain your recommendations? (see above) D. Another body that overlaps with the role and work of the Design Commission? If yes, which body? Explain their alignment. Yes. Urban design is a holistic, place-based discipline that synthesizes transportation, land use, environmental, and other considerations rather than sitting alongside them as a separate silo, so it naturally overlaps with the Urban Transportation Commission, Planning Commission, Environmental Commission, and others. That overlap rests on two things the Design Commission uniquely provides. First, a place-based focus on human experience: how people actually perceive, move through, and respond to the built environment. Other bodies bring essential technical expertise, but none is organized around that lens as its primary frame. This is where taxpayers and voters feel the difference most directly, whether a street redesign makes a corridor better to walk or bike, or whether a density bonus project supports a coherent public realm. Second, because urban design sits at the intersection of these disciplines, the Commission can synthesize across them, catching where a transportation, environmental, or land-use decision has design consequences a single-discipline review would miss. That catch has a real payoff for policy implementation: it's what prevents departments from making decisions in isolation that later conflict or require costly rework, and it's what keeps City investments in transportation, land use, and public space pulling toward the same outcome instead of working at cross purposes. That's why the overlap is a feature, not a redundancy, it's the check that keeps this lens from getting lost as projects move through bodies built around other priorities. E. Do the bylaws need to be updated? If yes, what would be the amendment (including section) and why? Yes: (See Bylaw Redline Doc) F. Do you see any gaps in important policies that are not currently covered by a board or commission? If yes, explain Yes. UTC, Planning Commission, Environmental Commission, and others each bring essential technical expertise, but none is structured to center the human-scale experience of place or to synthesize across departments and citywide policy, that gap isn't filled by any existing body. The practical effect is that many projects with significant impact on the public realm never reach the Design Commission, and no body is reviewing them holistically for design excellence or for alignment with City policy beyond the sponsoring department's own goals. Closing that gap through mandatory Design Commission review would support both more efficient delivery of public improvements across departments and better quality in these public investments as experienced by voters and taxpayers. G. Goals and objectives for the new calendar year a. Finalize the draft Urban Design Guidelines and support their adoption. b. Participate in creating and amending Downtown Density Bonus Program urban design standards. c. Participate in creating and amending citywide urban design standards d. Participate in creating and amending citywide street design criteria e. Explore relieving PC or P&Z committees or joint committees of their review responsibilities- taking over certain case loads. f. Explore strategic alignment with economic development initiatives, cultural district creation, and redevelopment projects across Austin. g. Advocate for structural leadership within the City of Austin, including elevating urban design expertise within the Innovation Office and establishing an Assistant City Manager (ACM)-level urban design champion. h. Explore establishing a centralized Urban Design Center to serve as a hub for community engagement, education, and innovation. Leverage real-world pilot projects to demonstrate immediate urban design value in the public realm. Bylaw Redline Article 1- NAME. The name of the board is Design Commission Urban Design Commission. Rational: Support clarity and broader understanding of the Commission’s role and duties. Shed the Commission's association with project-level 'design review board' functions. This association is no longer appropriate following (1) the replacement of substantial-compliance review under the Urban Design Guidelines with compliance under the Downtown Density Bonus Program Urban Design Standards, and (2) the elimination of the Commission's role in reviewing individual Downtown Density Bonus Program projects. (Conforming references should be updated in City Code Chapter 2-1, the Land Development Code, Downtown Density Bonus Program materials, and criteria manuals.) Article 2- PURPOSE AND DUTIES. A) The Commission is the City's advisory body of record on urban design outcomes citywide. As such, the commission shall provide advisory recommendations to the city council as requested by the city council to assist in developing public policy, to support interdisciplinary and interdepartmental coordination in furtherance of City plans and priorities, and to promote excellence in the design and development of the urban built environment. Rational: This change clarifies that Design Commission review shifts from discretionary to mandatory referral, and expands the Commission's purpose to leverage urban design expertise for interdisciplinary and interdepartmental benefit in support of City plans and priorities. “Urban environment” is replaced with “built environment” to clarify that the Commission’s purpose extends beyond the Central City District. B) The commission shall: (1) Offer policy recommendations regarding specific issues of urban design. (2) Participate in developing design guidelines. (3) Participate in developing urban design standards, Rational: Downtown Density Bonus Program projects now demonstrate compliance with Urban Design Standards rather than Urban Design Guidelines. Guidelines remain the relevant tool for guiding other public plans, programs, and projects, and the Commission should continue to help develop them. As advisory stewards of urban design, the Commission should also be a primary stakeholder in adopting and amending urban design standards citywide. (4) Review, study, and make recommendations to the Planning Commission, Zoning and Platting Commission, and City Council on: Unless otherwise directed by the city council, for projects that require the approval of the Planning Commission or the Zoning and Platting Commission: (i) Plans, master plans, and major improvements on City-owned land. “Major improvements” are considered to be a project or series of projects with total construction costs of $2,000,000 or greater. Review a project only after a formal request by the project sponsor or applicant; and (ii) Plans, programs, and projects with a material impact on the design of the public right-of-way, including major capital improvements in the right-of-way and updates or modifications to the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) Street Network Table and Map. "Major capital improvements" include street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, and any project involving 300 linear feet or more of excavation. Where “material impact” is unclear, the Chair shall determine applicability. (iii) Land Development Code (adoption and amendment), area plans (adoption and amendment), and City programs and projects affecting the following areas: transit station areas; (i) (ii) major transit corridors; and (iii) the Central City District planning area. (iv) Regulating Plans, Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones, and Planned Unit Developments (adoption and amendment). (v) Complete the review before the respective Planning or Zoning and Platting Commission takes final action; (5) Complete the review before the respective Planning Commission, Zoning and Platting Commission, City Council, or administrative approving authority as applicable, takes final action. Rational: Changing Design Commission review from discretionary to mandatory referral is necessary to ensure the appropriate projects are seen by the Commission and that Land Use Commissions and Council have the benefit of this Commission’s analysis and recommendations. These bodies have extensive case loads and are often not positioned to perform these analyses independently or analyze each item to determine which should be referred to the Urban Design Commission. This proposed list of mandatory referral items systematizes this referral to remove that burden from Council and Land Use Commissions.