Lady Bird Lake development rules coming to a vote

[KevinFromTexas]

The city council will vote on Thursday whether or not to reinstate the 1986 height restriction at a caps of 96, 60 and 25 feet in height on properties bordering the river through downtown. A height restriction of 25 feet (not even 2 floors tall in most cases) would be imposed nearest to the water.

Pay attention, because this is a great opportunity to see where these council member's priorities are.

Lady Bird Lake development rules coming to a vote
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...5ladybird.html



Excerpts from the article:

Originally Posted by the above article

A plan to cap the height of buildings along Lady Bird Lake at a maximum of 96 feet is coming before the City Council on Thursday in what could be a politically charged vote.

The proposal would restore height limits along the lake that were approved in 1986 but effectively wiped off the city's books a few years later. Some neighborhood activists say those height limits are necessary to preserve the character of the lake, which meanders in an east-west line through the central part of the city.

Originally Posted by the above article

One of the candidates for mayor, Council Member Lee Leffingwell, has been pushing for the height restrictions, which are sought by many of the neighborhood activists who are backing him, including the Austin Neighborhood Council.

Another mayoral candidate, Council Member Brewster McCracken, is a self-described New Urbanist who has pushed for more dense development in the middle of the city, a position that could further strain his relationship with the neighborhood groups should he vote against the proposal.

Originally Posted by the above article

Council Members Mike Martinez, Laura Morrison and Leffingwell said the city has been working publicly on the new rules for more than a year and should not delay approving them.

"This is not some 11th-hour proposal," said Martinez, who has endorsed Leffingwell and is actively supporting him on the campaign trail. "This is the result of a long public process that involved stakeholders from all sides."

Council members are also within their rights "to act before a new council takes office," said Jeff Jack, a director of activist group Save Town Lake, a citizens group formed in 2006 to fight what it sees as overdevelopment along the lake.

[nixcity]

Don't these people see that by doing this they just encourage more fertilzing lawns further to the west and east on the river that will eventually do more damage to the river. I'm all for the setbacks but 96 feet isn't high enough.

[M1EK]

They don't care about the environment of the river - they're protecting their views and their traffic conditions.

[KevinFromTexas]

To give you guys an idea of what a 96 foot building looks like, the CSC/Silicon Labs buildings flanking City Hall are 101 feet tall to their mechanical penthouses.

[KevinFromTexas]

LAME.

Council gives initial OK to lakefront height limits
Council members so far reject absolute limits along Lady Bird Lake.
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...01overlay.html

Originally Posted by the above article

In a compromise that defused a politically charged situation but left key points unresolved, the Austin City Council unanimously approved rules Thursday that limit the height of new buildings along Lady Bird Lake.

The limits are intended to prevent what neighborhood activists fear could become overdevelopment that ruins the lake, which meanders in an east-west line through the central part of the city.

Some of those activists were pushing for height limits that were absolute. But the council decided that the limits could be exceeded in certain cases where a developer can prove a taller building is better for the community.

[KevinFromTexas]

My response:

Anyone who suggests that Austin should adopt 96 foot height restrictions in downtown needs to pack their bags and move to Round Rock since that's the kind of place they'd fit right into. And to quote Jeff Jack: "Jeff Jack, a director of Save Town Lake, a citizens activist group formed in 2006 to fight what it sees as overdevelopment along the lake, said the council did not do much to demonstrate its values. He said the limits should be absolute. Dense development, he said, can go elsewhere in town." If dense development doesn't go downtown, then where else is it supposed to go? Jeff Jack says "elsewhere in town". But where? If you neighborhood group activists think having tall buildings in downtown is a problem, just wait until every major highway corridor and road in town is lined with tall buildings. Look, downtown is our main commerce center and our main center for vertical development. It's supposed to be dense. Is Jeff Jack and neighborhood group activists really saying that they support having tall buildings spread all over town? What about other neighborhoods around town that really would be affected then because buildings would be right inside their boundary lines? Downtown is where tall buildings belong. I find it funny that neighborhood activists say that if Austin keeps developing tall buildings in downtown that we'll become Dallas. But actually if anyone has payed attention upon trips to Houston and Dallas, you'll see they have hundreds of tall buildings spread all over town. Which is exactly what Jeff Jack and these neighborhood group activists are suggesting. Just think about that. They want tall buildings to be located outside of downtown, basically all over the city. How is that better? Downtown is where tall buildings should be, not "elsewhere in town" as in all over the city. Be careful what you wish for.

[M1EK]

You fell right into Jeff Jack's trap - of course he doesn't want tall buildings in other neighborhoods; he opposes all density everywhere.

[KevinFromTexas]

True, and I know that tall buildings outside of downtown aren't a negative thing, but still, downtown should be the primary place for them. I was just pointing out his comment that tall buildings should be all around town. I really doubt he actually means that, but he did say it. I guess you could say I was trying to sway people towards being accepting of density in and around downtown.

[KevinFromTexas]

Austin is officially taking steps backwards.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...rd_lake_r.html

Council moves ahead on height limits for buildings along Lady Bird Lake

By Marty Toohey | Thursday, May 21, 2009, 08:42 PM

The Austin City Council gave the second of three approvals Thursday night to limit the height of buildings along Lady Bird Lake.

Buildings would be limited to 96 feet in some areas and to 60 feet in other places.

The height limits are intended to prevent what neighborhood activists fear could become over-development of the lakeside, a tree-lined ribbon loved by joggers that meanders in an east-west line through the central part of the city. Similar height restrictions were passed in 1986 but were effectively wiped off the books in 1999.

[Scottolini]

No this is great. Tall buildings don't "fit" in with Austin.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...aterfront.html

AUSTIN
Lady Bird Lake height limits OK'd
Buildings must be less than 96 feet in some areas, 60 feet in others.

By Marty Toohey
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Developers will be bound by new height restrictions along Lady Bird Lake under rules adopted Thursday night by the Austin City Council.

The limits are mostly a victory for neighborhood activists, who have said for two years that high-rise development could spoil vistas of the lake and block public access.

According to the new rules, buildings along the lake cannot exceed 96 feet in some areas and 60 feet in others.

[paulsjv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...aterfront.html

This really sucks, IMO, so what's the restriction on how close to the lake? Is it from the shore to 100yrds this restriction is in place or something else?

[priller]

But what does this really affect? Just looking at the map, it seems to apply only to areas right around hike&bike trail and maybe more along the south bank. The only thing I'm not sure about is Green project area. Other than that, it doesn't really seem to be a restriction on tall buildings in downtown, is it?

[KevinFromTexas]

The whole Rainey Street/Waterfront District is affected. So no more Legacy & Shore type towers. I've really enjoyed those, despite not being the most inspiring designs, they've really added a new dynamic to the skyline.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The whole Rainey Street/Waterfront District is affected. So no more Legacy & Shore type towers. I've really enjoyed those, despite not being the most inspiring designs, they've really added a new dynamic to the skyline.

Sorry, that is not true. If that were the case, this action would have been a lot more controversial - believe me.

The North Shore Central, City Hall (which was carved out of North Shore Central) and Rainey Street Sub-Districts of the Waterfront Overlay District do not have height limits other than the setback angles. Without WOD height limits, the height limits of the base zoning applies. All of these areas are zoned CBD, which has no height limit, other than a few parcels in the Seaholm District which are zoned DMU-CURE and have already been granted additional height through the CURE zoning.

[NThomas]

Please tell me this isn't the proposal the neighborhood was getting pissed off about.



If the buildings were to be any lower, the renters/owners would have to be morlocks.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by H2O

Sorry, that is not true. If that were the case, this action would have been a lot more controversial - believe me.

The North Shore Central, City Hall (which was carved out of North Shore Central) and Rainey Street Sub-Districts of the Waterfront Overlay District do not have height limits other than the setback angles. Without WOD height limits, the height limits of the base zoning applies. All of these areas are zoned CBD, which has no height limit, other than a few parcels in the Seaholm District which are zoned DMU-CURE and have already been granted additional height through the CURE zoning.

But take a look at this map that the American-Statesman provided for the first article of this thread. It clearly shows the Rainey Street area being included. Everything between Congress & I-35 south of Cesar Chavez is inside the height restricted area.