I watched the rebroadcast of the Planning Commission Meeting. What with the disscussion and all the speakers and the voting at the end, the whole thing took close to four hours. I tried to take notes and here's some of what I remember.
Groups supporting the project:
- Downtown Commission
- Design Commission
- Downtown Austin Neighborhood Coalition
- Downtown Austin Neighborhood Alliance
- West End Austin Alliance
- Old Austin Neighborhood
- Caswell Heights Neighborhood Association
- 5 Rivers Neighborhood Association
- Central Austin Neighborhood Planning Area
- University Partners
- Shoal Creek Neighborhood
- North University Neighborhood
- Eastwoods Neighborhood
- Hancock Neighborhood
Some of the businesses that supported the project included
- Ranch 616
- Sovereign Bank
- ABC Bank
- Star Bar
- Hut's Hamburgers
- Key Bar
- Aquarelle Restaurant
- Austin Wine Merchant
- Book People
- American Cleaners
- Waterloo Ice House
- Waterloo Records
- Joe's Bar & Grill
- Wahoo's
- Little Woodrow
- Pure Austin
- GSD&M
- Whole Foods
- Frank & Angies
- Forney's Furniture
- Hoffbrau Restaurant
- Comerica Bank
I think four property ownews opposed the project. Milkshake and the Austin Women's Club were two. I can't remember the other two.
The lead speaker in favor of the project (an attorney - can't remember his name) noted that most of the area, south, east and west of the project was zoned CBD, but Capitol View Corridors limited height and this was the one place where something tall could be built.
He said it represented good planning due to:
- Providing proper density for the area
- Adding owned residential units (158) to the area
- Providing density on a transit corridor
- Providing optimal traffic impact - (garage access for condos on Rio Grande and garage access for retail on 7th and gave Ranch 616 more parking than it has now.) An alley was to be used for service vehicles and dumpsters.
- Adhering to the city's Great Streets Program (along 7th and Rio Grande.) I think the Great Streets program calls for sidewalks at least 15' wide, (8' for trees and furniture placement like benches, bike racks, etc and a 7' clear zone.) I seem to remember something about this project having sidewalks wider than that. 18' feet at least
- Preserving Ranch 616
One of the commissioners questioned whether the project was really along a transit corridor because it faced 7th St and not 6th. The attorney said something along the lines of he considered that whole square block along a transit corridor because of 6th street.
He also said they could have the building face 6th and the garage stuck in the back along 7th, but he felt that wouldn't be respectful to the historic neighborhood north of 7th St. He felt it would be better to have a good pedestrian streetscape facing the historic area.
Some commissioners questioned the affordable housing component of the project. The attorney said there probably wouldn't be any affordable housing within the project itself, but they would instead, make a financial contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere.
One of the other commissioners pointed out that the city couldn't legally require a developer to provide affordable housing within their projects and that's why the city had the option to make a contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere. The money could also be used to provide housing vouchers.
There was some question by one of the commissioners as to whether or not the excavation for the underground parking could possibly damage some of the nearby historic structures due to vibration or other factors. The attorney said he didn't think so and they'd done other simialr projects in the same general area such as the Carr-America Bldg.and Austin City Lofts.
He also said if any property owner was concerned that they would do an inspection both before the excavation for the underground parking and after the project was completed to make sure there would be no problems.
The building is supposed to have 2 floors of underground parking, ground floor retail ranging from 18' to 22' in height, 5 floors of above-ground parking and 26 floors of condos. The tower part would be set back at least 15 feet from the base along 7th and Rio Grande..
I think he said 75% of the building front along 7th and also Rio Grande would be pedestrian oriented (retail stores and restaurants and building entrances) and the other 25% would be the 2 entrances to the garage - one for retail and one for condo owners.
There were lots of speakers signed up, mostly in support of the project. One of the commissioners said she couldn't remember another project where they had gotten so many e-mails.
Some of the points the speakers brought up were that
- The project would reverse a negative trend in that area by bringing people back to the streets. With residents in the tower there would be more "eyes on the street" and the area would be safer. There would be different retail besides the bars and clubs on E. 6th and hopefully not "a lot of drunks."
- One Austin City Lofts resident said she enjoyed downtown living, but that there was no vitality in the area where this project was being proposed and no real reason to go there, especially at night.
- The project would redirect growth away from the Barton Creek watershed and improve air and water quality. Suburbanites generate more daily car trips and they're longer car trips to boot.
- It would add to the tax base downtown. Downtown is the economic engine for the city and the money generated there helps to pay for other projects and services throughout the city. It would add density in a location that already had infrastructure in place.
- It would be a point tower so it wouldn't obstruct views like a shorter wider tower. As far as neighborhood compatablility, many felt that "hard edges" (tall buildings) across from the hisoric homes was ok. It wasn't so much the height of the building that matter, especially since it's a point tower. It was the street-level experience that mattered.
- The owner of Austin Wine Merchants said that it would bring more foot traffic to businesses in the area and in his opinion a pedestrian customer was generally a "happier" customer.
Everyone (even those opposing the project) seemed to admire the property owner, Mike McGuiness. One lady said he looked for ways to add to green space and trails, not just in the downtown area, but throughout all areas of the city.
Two ladies from the Austin Womens Club also spoke in favor of the project and one mentioned that there was an official vote but not all members got to vote due to notification problems with many of the members. One lady also mentioned that homeless people slept in their dumpster and sometimes on their front porch and she felt the proposed project would make the area safer and alleviate some of these types of problems.
The side that opposed the project basically felt that it was a good project but just in the wrong place and many of them wanted the Planning Commssion to hold off until the design study being conducted by ROMA was complete, but that's not going to be for another year or so and things like demand and construction costs could change by then.
Their argument for waiting until the ROMA study was complete was that until then, the Planning Commission would be approving projects piecemeal and you'd wind up with a lot of hodge-podge.
The lead speaker (from Milkshake) for the opposing side even had a Lego model of the area (not as good as Kevin's, though
) showing how tall the tower would be in relation to nearby buildings. She seemed to mainly be worried about her view, but if the project were only 120' feet tall, it would still change her view.
In the end, the Commission voted on the project as the developer wanted it, but that proposal failed 5 to 3. What they did pass (DMU with a height limit of 120') passed 6 to 2.
You could tell Commissioner Gallindo (sp?) was really pulling for the taller version of the project. He said that if the developer even chose to go with the shorter version, the street level part probably wouldn't be as nice and Ranch 616 probably wouldn't get to stay. He felt tha by opposing the project, Austin was losing a good opportunity to achieve the sort of project that downtown is hoping for.
Another commissioner stressed that this was only their recommendation and that the final decision was up to the City Council. I think, but am not sure, that the earliest this could go before the City Council is January 25.
That's pretty much all I remember. It's still going to be rebroadcast one more time Mon. morning at 6:00 a.m. if anyone wants to watch/tape it.