Design Commission recommends amended downtown density-bonus urban design standards to Planning Commission

The Design Commission voted to recommend the alternate draft of the downtown density‑bonus phase 1 urban design standards to the Planning Commission after adopting three amendments intended to clarify frontage designations, encourage active ground‑floor uses and expand acceptable second‑story treatments.

The commission’s motion, made by Commissioner Richard Howard and seconded (recorded as by Commissioner Whitstrup), passed by voice vote. The commission directed staff to forward the amended draft to the Planning Commission and asked that a representative from the urban design guideline working group keep the Design Commission updated on coordination with the Planning Commission.

Howard told the commission the staff draft’s use of the subchapter d definition of “Principal Street” relies on a transportation hierarchy that “does not align to the pedestrian priority street, which is the street that we actually want the higher level standards on,” and proposed a new "Frontage designations" paragraph to define Primary Street, Side Street and a street‑priority list tied to the downtown density bonus boundary. He read examples of streets in the highest category including Congress Avenue, Red River Street, Rainey Street and 6th Street and cited trail and greenway entries (Waller Creek Trail, Waterloo Greenway, Shoal Creek Trail) as later priority categories.

Why it matters: the added frontage definitions change how the draft assigns pedestrian‑oriented standards across downtown and on sites that abut multiple street types. The commission’s language ties frontage designation to the adjacent street or trail and references the Great Streets master plan typologies for ordering priorities, which can affect which blocks must meet enhanced frontage standards.

The commission also approved an amendment to item 3 (active uses) that allows an average of one independent ground‑floor tenant space designed for pedestrian‑oriented use for every 60 feet of primary‑street frontage and permits reducing the required street‑facing liner building frontage to 60 percent in those cases. A commissioner (speaker 5) explained the intent: “The intent of this is to incentivize the projects have, when possible, a larger number of smaller uses between the streetscape versus a single 1 1 use,” saying the change gives relief while encouraging walkable main‑street frontage.

Another amendment revised enhanced second‑story language so that, for certain enhanced standards, at least 50 percent of the street‑facing facade area may be composed of transparent window area or outdoor porch area (previously the language required transparent window area only). Howard clarified the commission split the enhanced standard into two levels: one focused on primary street frontage and a stricter one that expands the same 60 percent requirement to include side‑street frontage on corner lots.

Commissioners noted editorial and typographical issues and acknowledged that final legal and formatting adjustments would be drafted by city staff if the commission’s recommendation is forwarded. Howard warned that, under one legal interpretation, some draft standards (he cited items 6, 16 and 17) might be at risk because urban design standards could be interpreted to apply to all eligible sites; he recommended involving the law department and empowering working‑group representatives to work with the Planning Commission to clarify intent.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to recommend the alternate draft as amended to the Planning Commission — mover: Commissioner Richard Howard; second: Commissioner Whitstrup (per the record); outcome: approved by voice vote; vote tally: not specified. Amendments incorporated into the forwarded draft included: (1) frontage‑designation paragraph; (2) item 3 clause allowing 1 tenant per 60 feet and 60% liner reduction; (3) enhanced‑standard allowance for outdoor porch area in place of additional transparent window area.

Next steps: staff will publish the forwarded recommendation as Planning Commission backup materials on the Planning Commission docket; the commission asked that an urban design guideline working‑group representative report back to the Design Commission on coordination and any substantive edits from Planning Commission working sessions.

Attributions: direct quotations and paraphrases are taken from the meeting transcript and attributed to Commissioner Richard Howard and other commissioners (role labels used where a full name was not explicitly recorded in the transcript).