Sorry for the light posting, but I've been on a beach for the past few days without computer internet access. I'll try to catch up.
First up is the fight over the Grayco project on East Riverside, which Council is scheduled to consider today. Although the Grayco property is nearly 400 feet from Lady Bird Lake at its closest point, it still sits within the Waterfront Overlay. The developer has proposed a PUD allowing 1,200 units. It is asking for an exception to the overlay's height limit to build to 90 feet rather than the 60 feet allowed by the Overlay.
View Grayco in a larger map
Save Town Lake, predictably, opposes the exemption. The Statesman and Shilli have full coverage, which I won't rehash here.
But this argument needs rebutting:
[O]pponents say the project would set a troublesome precedent for development along the lake, where the new city rules would limit building heights on part of the Grayco site to 60 feet.
Tom Cooke, chairman of Save Town Lake, which was created several years ago to protect the lakefront against intense development, said the project would set a "dangerous precedent" for developers to circumvent the rules by seeking approval for their projects on a "case-by-case basis" as planned unit developments.
"The message needs to be clear to the development community that the community has made themselves very clear" in favor of ordinances protecting the waterfront, Cooke said.
We can debate whether the Grayco project provides enough community benefit. We can debate whether the Grayco design passes muster. But Cooke's argument is a bit of misdirection. When Council passed the ordinance on June 11, it debated whether to exempt PUDs from the height limits. Save Town Lake pushed hard to hold PUDs to the height limits. Council ultimately made PUDs subject to the ordinance, but explicitly provided that "[t]his does not limit a PUD's ability to modify the Waterfront Overlay exemption." In other words, Council decided then to allow exemptions for PUDs on a "case-by-case basis." Save Town Lake lost that one.
The debate over the Grayco project should focus on whether it is good enough for an exception. But stating that the Grayco project would establish a "dangerous precedent" for case-by-case exceptions is misleading when Council has already resolved to allow case-by-case exceptions.
