Austin - The CWS Debacle

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by chancla

I'm with JAM on this one. A variance here would set a bad precedent.

The developers can still do high density 200 feet from Town Lake. Who cares if it's not the exact project they wanted to do. The only reason they're complaining is because it will cost them more to do the density they wanted with the available area.

Yes, but the end result is most likely that they build two towers, instead of three, and end up refurbishing the old buildings right next to the water, meaning that the trail users get absolutely nothing. You guys keep glossing over that point.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Yes, but the end result is most likely that they build two towers, instead of three, and end up refurbishing the old buildings right next to the water, meaning that the trail users get absolutely nothing. You guys keep glossing over that point.

M1EK - this is a discussion forum. A DISCUSSION Forum. Not a court of law. And if you would take the time to go back to the initial point of DISCUSSION, you would see this point was not glossed over. The 150 setback is an encroachment on the 200 foot setback rule. This would jeopardize the entire lake front. Where do we stop? 100 feet, 50 feet? The developer should have been forth right in the first place and they probably would have never raised so many eyebrows. Regardless, the only thing the people of Austin have given up is 1000 feet of trail. Then it is back to the road. The land beyond is also privately owned, or a trail can not be put in place anyway due to other barriers. The developer was going to give a sliver of land, not a vast park. Once you pass their 1000 foot long sliver of land, it is back to the street. Big deal. At least there is not buildings hovering. And people can boat out on the lake, shadow free. The water is also parkland, and this part has been saved. Like I said, the developer was not forthright in the beginning, and I quit listening to what they had to say because everything up to that point was a waste of time. Not sure what their last proposal was, and I'm not claiming to. If you know what it is, then spit it out.

[M1EK]

Their last proposal was to build in the 150-200 foot zone. I made that clear already. And you're darn straight that no future trail will exist past here, at least, now it won't, because developers now know that it's not worthwhile to attempt to negotiate because the ANC crazies will just shut it down.

As for "shading the lake" and all that other rhetoric - give it a break. At 150 feet, this project would be a lot farther away from the lake than the Hyatt. Trying to make it sound like more of the same is dishonest.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Their last proposal was to build in the 150-200 foot zone. I made that clear already.

You said 150, and with no specifics. Still clear as mud.

Originally Posted by M1EK

And you're darn straight that no future trail will exist past here, at least, now it won't, because developers now know that it's not worthwhile to attempt to negotiate because the ANC crazies will just shut it down.

This is complete B.S. Lake front development is VERY desirable, and this will not stop any potential developer in any way.

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for "shading the lake" and all that other rhetoric - give it a break. At 150 feet, this project would be a lot farther away from the lake than the Hyatt. Trying to make it sound like more of the same is dishonest.

The Hyatt is too close. The Hyatt has the same sliver of park land they proposed. As for the shading of the lake, go down there and check it out for yourself.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by JAM

You said 150, and with no specifics. Still clear as mud.

They want to build at the 150-foot line. That's not specific enough? WTF is your problem?

This is complete B.S. Lake front development is VERY desirable, and this will not stop any potential developer in any way.

It will stop a potential developer from attempting to negotiate a trail extension in return for development rights.

The Hyatt is too close. The Hyatt has the same sliver of park land they proposed. As for the shading of the lake, go down there and check it out for yourself.

No, the Hyatt has a lot LESS parkland than what was proposed at CWS. Equating the two is completely dishonest. The CWS towers would be a lot farther away from the lake than the Hyatt is; and people on your side used the Hyatt bogeyman against CWS, misrepresenting them as similar.

[JAM]

So we don't clog the Austin update thread:

Here are some links if you want to know what has happened over at the CWS site.


http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:412282

"To make the project financially viable (or more bluntly, to maximize its profit) the developer – California-based CWS Capital Partners – wants to build far closer to Town Lake and its tributary, Blunn Creek, than city ordinance currently allows. CWS is asking the city for an 80-foot setback, rather than the required 200 feet."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:422676

"According to city staff, the developer of the project at 222/300 E. Riverside, CWS Capital Partners, may be legally obligated to provide the city of Austin significantly more parkland than it had planned to, on a prime Town Lake waterfront site."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:432109

"In response to community objections to its site plan for a residential tower at 222/300 E. Riverside, developer CWS Capital Partners has submitted a new site plan – to make the project worse."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:433455

"The Austin Business Journal reports the organization called Save Town Lake has filed to become a nonprofit. The object of their ire is the CWS Capital Partners condo development slated along the waterfront, which also looks to build closer to the lake than current setbacks require. Check out the Save Town Lake website here, and be sure to peek at their exhaustive list of development plans here. The lakefront firestorm's only going to get hotter in 2007. "

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:437351

...Both PARD and the Town Lake Trail Foundation also are pursuing the idea of an over-the-water boardwalk, to close the Riverside gap. Having this alternative in its back pocket strengthens the city's bargaining power with developers – like CWS Capital Properties, at 222 and 300 E..."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:440609

A few well-heeled developers and high-priced lawyers should not be able to set aside the established intention of the community, that was reflected through the carefully considered and thoughtful Waterfront Overlay Ordinance,” said SaveTownLake.org’s Scott Hendler. “We call upon Toby Futrell and city staff to ensure that the integrity of the review process by carefully evaluating the developer’s compliance with all procedures and regulations.”

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:531094

"Today, Council Member Mike Martinez announced he will not be supporting developer requested variances to the Town Lake Waterfront Overlay.

The Overlay was created in the 1980’s through a citizen lead initiative to protect the lake front from encroaching development. It was intended to guide future development to protect the water quality and parklands – the things that make the waterfront such a valued resource to the entire community.

“The Town Lake Waterfront Overlay was a citizen-lead policy initiative that should only be overturned or amended in that same manner. If there are property owners and community members who believe there should be amendments to the overlay, there is a comprehensive public process that should be used. Granting individual property owners requested variances is not good policy for legislation that protects a crown jewel in the heart of Austin’s urban core.”

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:531754

In a surprise reversal, the Town Lake Trail Foundation supported the variances. Executive Director Susan Rankin spoke in favor of gaining public access to what is now private land. Upon questioning, she said the cost of the alternative – an overwater boardwalk trail right past the property – is estimated at $1,523 per linear foot, which pencils out to about $1.7 million for the site's roughly 1,120 feet of lakefront shoreline. The Parks Department's Ricardo Soliz said the developer owes the city $1.7 million in parkland-dedication fees for the project. How synchronistic: exactly enough to build a boardwalk trail right past the whole tract. So why deal with the developer?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:538043

Info on the zoning.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:540616

"...For this reinvigorated passion for protecting natural open space on Lady Bird Lake, Austin owes a debt of gratitude not just to watchdog neighborhood associations and SaveTownLake.org but also, perversely, to CWS Capital Part­ners and its agent, Richard Suttle. Had the site plans that CWS filed for its 17-story shoreline condo towers not presumed such greedy setback variances, been so outrageously out of scale, and been so blatantly disrespectful of WO values, SaveTownLake.org never would have formed..."


http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:545714

Hilariously, CWS seems to have seized on this idea – hey, a developer in a black hat! – to craft its latest misinformation campaign. CWS commissioned the e-mail blast now bouncing around town (pasted below the fold), which poses as coming from a phantom group they conjured up, Extend Our Trail. (Their minions also are calling around town with a misinformation phone surveys.) The now-desperate CWS misinformation campaign represents city council as the so-called bad guy who must be urged by citizens to grant a variance to a developer - that being CWS, of course! – as a way to "demand responsible development." Huh?

Poor CWS has resorted to posing as a bunch of liberal anti-developers. Have they no shame? Of course, nowhere does the CWS misinformation campaign admit that "the wrong option" they so aptly identify would be 100% their voluntary choice. CWS does not have to leave (or rebuild in place) the existing three-story apartment buildings close to the waterfront, for any reason at all. Except to make more money and spite the community.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:497326

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...oid=oid:549534

In an argument that's gone on so long the lake has changed its name, the city moved closer to rejecting plans to allow development closer to the shores of Lady Bird Lake. Last night, the Planning Commission voted unanimously against agenda items 4 and 5, the two easement variants sought by CWS Capital Partners LLC. This would have allowed them to move their secondary setback line from the river forward 50 ft, and 130ft on East Bouldin Creek, pushing their proposed developments at 222 and 300 East Riverside much closer to the waterfront.

[M1EK]

And my coverage here.

As for "the developer still has plenty of options", that's third-grade thinking at its finest. Business isn't about "fair", it's about mutual benefit. What incentive does CWS possibly have now to negotiate any further?

PS: Tried to cut/paste here, wrapped with [HTML] but didn't work. Any suggestions?

[DTAustin]

Originally Posted by bigdogc

This is a setback to the closest downtown area development. These towers would have really accelerated the growth of buildings south of townlake. We need to get more people involved in this issue. I dont think 60 skyscraperpage forumers can do much in a city of 500k+, but if we get more people involved we can do something. From the general austinites I know, they are very excited and welcoming towards new construction, but they don't take the time to read stuff like "Towers too close to townlake get denied". Let's get people like that involved with a petition.

PRO-urbanites unite!

Personally, I think the intention is to not build towers south of Town Lake. Sure, there are a few, but in general the city and surrounding area oppose them. Someone also had a good point about not building towers outside of the CBD. If you can build a tower anywhere, then the value of the CBD is lowered.

There was a petition. It was opposed to the towers. Go to savetownlake.org

[DTAustin]

Zoning doesn't have much impact on taxes there - the land value (which is the meat of it) is the same whatever the property is zoned. The only thing the city could do would be to offer some kind of homestead exemption for these folks.

One would think so, but this isn't true. If the zoning is changed to allow larger or taller buildings on the property, then this will usually create more demand for the land. If the amount of land is limited, as in the case of West Campus, then the prices paid for land will rise. This will have a direct impact on your property taxes. This is exactly what is happening in West Campus.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by M1EK

PS: Tried to cut/paste here, wrapped with [HTML] but didn't work. Any suggestions?

After you cut and paste, you'll probably need to grab the html links individually so they don't get wrapped.

[M1EK]

DTAustin, yes, but in their case, they're arguing about zoning for high-density apartment versus fraternities - the zoning category is actually the same thing (multi-family) - the only new thing is an overlay, which the frats could take advantage of just as easily as could the apartments.

They also had plenty of opportunity to oppose the overlay when it went through a year or more of tortuous public input, I might add.

[M1EK]

By the way, using solely the Austin Chronicle as your source on this is not a great idea - they're one of the primary sponsors of Save Town Lake.

[DTAustin]

Originally Posted by M1EK

DTAustin, yes, but in their case, they're arguing about zoning for high-density apartment versus fraternities - the zoning category is actually the same thing (multi-family) - the only new thing is an overlay, which the frats could take advantage of just as easily as could the apartments.

They also had plenty of opportunity to oppose the overlay when it went through a year or more of tortuous public input, I might add.

Regardless if it is an overlay or zoning change, the problem the fraternities are having is that their land is becoming more valuable because of the overlay, and taxes are increasing accordingly.

[TDoss]

Originally Posted by M1EK

By the way, using solely the Austin Chronicle as your source on this is not a great idea.

Agreed.
I am done with that publication.

[mars-man]

Here's a rundown, including a nice aerial graphic, of the campaign to extend a boardwalk to complete the trail along the south shore.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/d...IS_2-pager.pdf

Mayor Wynn and others have been championing this behind the scenes for a while now, so I wouldn't be surprised if enough funding is eventually raised to make this a reality. This could also explain, in part, the lackluster response to the CWS offer on the Planning Commission, and the reported majority-against stance of the City Council were the issue to go before them for a vote.

[M1EK]

That's exactly the boardwalk planning document I read today, and my conclusion was that it assumed the availability of on-land segments (like the one CWS was willing to give up) - it mentions such in at least one place. A pure boardwalk solution for 5000 feet doesn't strike me as feasible.

[KevinFromTexas]

JAM, I hope you don't mind, but I've moved all the CWS Capital/Riverside Drive towers posts into this thread. Because of the way the forum program works however, any posts pre-dating this thread, will be posted first.

[JAM]

Thanks Kevin. I think this is a worthy discussion and if someone can provide a worthy argument from either side it is worth listening to. All of us, and our children and grandchildren will inherit the consequenses in the years to come.

[Marbster]

I've visited this forum and enjoyed reading about all the new and exciting things popping up in Austin but this is probably the first time I've posted anything. I'm personally interested in the CWS development because I just happen to own a condo unit on the bordering complex just east of the controversial property. I'll be the first to say that although I would love to see something cool being built. . .I'm pretty warry of CWS and the lawyer that represents them. I'm just soaking in all the fact and have attended a few meetings where they've stated their case. But even when I try to keep an open mind to the sincerity of their point of view, there's always an underlying component that seems to bring up red flags. When I read the Statesman's article called "Commission says no to Riverside highrises," I was compelled to post one of the many comment which is what I wrote below.

"Please be aware of the tactics used by this specific developer. They’ve dodged a substantial mandatory Parkland dedication fees by basing it on the number of current units on the land (100) and not their proposed new buildings (700+). They’ve twisted the word “donation” of land when in actuality, the land is owed to the City of Austin - the citizens of Austin, with any NEW development along the shore (not removing the old structures sounds like a threat and not a responsible choice). They’ve submitted this development to the city as 2 separate projects (222 and 300 E. Riverside) in order to negate a traffic study report that would probably require additional restrictions due to the scale of the development (traffic already blows at this location). They’ve created a scenario that the City has only 2 options…their way with big profits or their way with bigger profits. Honestly, I totally want something cool to be built on this property and extend the hike and bike trail…but if CWS can only come up with a rigid “if or else” solution, then they’re not creative enough to be developing in Austin and should step aside and let a responsible developer work on such an important piece of property. THE FIGHT’S NOT ABOUT THE TRAIL YA’LL, BUT RESPECTING THE VISION OF THE CITY AND IT’S CITIZENS. We deserve the whole damn cookie. Not a few handed crumbs."

True, I sound a bit "anti-"CWS at the moment. But I'm just a simple citizen who just wants the straight up facts and not feel as if I'm being hoodwinked. Unlike those who are pro-trail (which I am too) and want the convenience of a nice 1-2 hour uninterupted trail run. . .this directly affects me as a neighbor, resident, and property owner who will wake up every day seeing the effects of what happens next door.

[paulsjv]

So let me get this straight. Because of CWS the trail is not going to be completed like the proposal in the PDF?