| It's not often that I'd post an entire explanation from an elected official. But given the complaints from the local Austin neighborhood/environs who, while well meaning, I believe are wrong on the 'contentious' development proposal known as the Grayco PUD... let's just say that everything in this explanation from Councilman Chris Riley is worth reading.
From Austin Councilmember Chris Riley... If you want to understand why I voted for the Grayco project on first reading—and why that vote is consistent with my campaign pledges—a good starting point is this street view of Lakeshore Boulevard, about ¾ of a mile east of I-35, looking east: (give it a minute to load).
On the left (north of Lakeshore) is Lady Bird Lake and beautiful, green parkland with both a trail and a sidewalk. This image fits the community’s vision for Lady Bird Lake, and the Grayco project would leave it untouched.
On the right (south of Lakeshore) is a very different scene. Other than the trees along Lakeshore, there’s nothing green about this area: just surface parking behind a steel fence and 2-story, 1970s-style apartment buildings. It is a bleak, car-dominated setting, inaccessible to the public, and I don’t believe it fits the community’s vision for our waterfront. Without PUD zoning, the owner of this property could rebuild these apartment buildings up to 60 feet high (5 stories). There would be no requirement to provide public access, non-residential uses, or any affordable housing at all.
The owner is proposing something different. Under this proposal, the steel fencing along Lakeshore would be removed and the surface parking would be replaced with greenspace at least 50 feet wide. Instead of the 5-story buildings allowed under current zoning, the existing buildings would be replaced with buildings up to 7 stories tall (90 feet), which would be at least 390 feet from the lake. In exchange for this additional height, the owner would provide community benefits including the following:
· Affordability: Contribution to the city’s Affordable Housing Assistance Fund (at least $1.5 million), and/or affordable units onsite.
· Connectivity: Extension of the urban grid throughout the project, including additional driveways to Lakeshore Blvd.
· Mixed use: Pedestrian-oriented uses at ground level.
· Bicycle-pedestrian amenities: Sidewalks and bike lanes throughout the project, a trail across the front, showers for employees in the commercial spaces, and 3 car-sharing spaces.
· Water quality: A regional wet pond, capturing the runoff from the entire site and over 100 acres offsite.
· Parkland: Contribution of $225,000 for additional trail facilities along the lake (in addition to about $800,000 in required fees).
· Trees: Preservation of the trees along Lakeshore Boulevard (21 in place, 2 relocated and 3 removed) and along Town Creek; restoration of greenspace for better tree growth.
· Greenbuilding: 3 stars from the Austin Energy Green Building Program.
· Public safety: Free space for an APD substation for 25 years.
· Community space: 1000sf rent-free for community meetings, a day care, or a non-profit for 25 years.
· Local small business: Retail space for a local business at 15 percent below market.
· Art: Public plazas with public art.
· Historic preservation: $25,000 for preservation of the Norwood House.
· Parking: No visible parking (all below-grade or integrated).
In light of all the benefits it offers, the proposed project has been recommended by every citizens’ board that has reviewed it: the Environmental Board, the Bicycle Advisory Council, and the Planning Commission. It has also been favorably reviewed by both the Austin Chronicle and the Austin American-Statesman. |
Our city code, which incorporates the Waterfront Overlay, sets the general height limits for development. It also allows for additional height in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) if development under the PUD would be superior to the development that would occur under conventional zoning. In this case, while I am still concerned about the affordable housing components and a few other matters, I believe this project will be far superior to the development that would occur under conventional zoning.
This position is absolutely consistent with my campaign pledge to support the reestablishment of the 1986 height limits in the waterfront overlay. Those height limits are the main reason we’re being offered the community benefits included in this project; without those limits, Grayco would have no need to offer anything. While I might not have chosen to allow PUDs to supercede those limits, that decision was made before I joined the Council, and I respect it. If the project is approved, the Waterfront Overlay’s height limits will still be in place all around the lake, and we will have set an extremely high bar for going beyond them.
Support for this project is also consistent with my campaign pledge to oppose any rezoning requests that violate the intent of the 1986 ordinance. The 1985 Town Lake Corridor Study, which gave rise to the ordinance, envisioned “extraordinary urban design” in this area, with pedestrian-oriented uses and little or no surface parking, and it specifically recommended public access through the existing apartments along Lakeshore. It also recommended providing “incentives for increasing residential uses in the Corridor.” I believe this project, with all of its proposed benefits—addressing community needs I repeatedly pledged to address during my campaign—would fulfill the vision behind the 1986 ordinance by helping make the whole area an inviting, publicly accessible, bicycle/pedestrian-oriented destination, with outstanding streetscapes and public spaces.
In addition to supporting the 1986 height limits, I also support reasonable height limits just outside the Waterfront Overlay, which is why I made a successful motion to reduce the maximum height in the Grayco PUD from 120 feet down to 90 feet—30 feet lower than the maximum height allowed on the site immediately to the east.
We still have some work to do on the affordable housing provisions, and on the PUD notes and covenants that would nail down the commitments the owner is making. I look forward to more input on these items and others as the case moves forward. Lady Bird Lake is a treasure for the whole community, so we all have a stake in getting this right.
Thanks for your interest in this –Regards,
Chris Riley |
